Sarewitz’s problem is that he forgets the title of the book is “The Republican War on Science.” Mooney is documenting a consistent and concernted effort to distort science by the elements of the right. That is not to say the left do not do so. This Interview with Mooney alludes to what type of governemnt with leftist leanins would approach science. However it isn’t as prevalent as what is happening with the right. I don’t see the point in Sarewitz whinging that Mooney does not document the left. It is not the point of the book. It smacks of a belief in the fallacy of balance and the bizarre idea of you must denounce everything if you denounce something.

Sarewitz also fails the political landscape that has created the Republican buzzwords “junk science” and “sound science.” Sarewitz makes the bizarre claim that these expressions are taken from the mainstream scicentific community. When you look behind Steve Milloy and his claims of ‘junk science’ Sarewitz is being very naive.

Sarewitz harps on the idea of “pure science” which is a strawman argument in the way which science should be used to determine policy. He dismisses are lot of reasoned argument about how we should approach science even if the science is not perfect yet still persuasive. Oh and the reference to Nazi attitudes to human rights and embyro research is plain bizarre. He also makes the mistake of confusing science with the agenda of scientists. I think there is a big difference here.

All in all I am not impressed by Sarewitz’s reasoning.

I hope, dk, you’re not going to make a habit of using the term “Darwinists.” That language is part of creationists’ attempts to paint evolution as an ideology, a mere dogma propogated by closedminded fanatics.(oh, the irony) It is belittling.

They are not “Darwinists”, they are scientists. They are not “Darwinists” anymore than physicists are Newtonists or Einsteinists. They are they are biologists, chemists, astronomers, anthropologists, geologists etc etc.

Sophocles long ago
Heard it on the Aegean, and it brought
Into his mind the turbid ebb and flow
Of human misery; we
Find also in the sound a thought,
Hearing it by this distant northern sea.

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl’d.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.

Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,

Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

Agree wholeheartedly with Liam - the same “pseudo-scientific” tactics combined with sophisticated PR/marketing/political techniques are at work in the equation of homosexuality with public health dangers by the Christian right.

Oh, and excuse my philosophical naivete, but whether evolution is supported by empirical evidence is a scientific question. Whatever sociological, political, or philosophical conclusions you then draw from them are issues for those disciplines, not science. Yes, I am not so naive to not understand the value judgements behind the things scientists choose to research, and what lines of enquiry they pursue, and the methods by which they pursue them. And certainly scientists are dabbling in the black arts when they advocate public policy based on their theories and observations (and gut reactions, which is often all they have available for the matter at hand). But your conflation of these things is inappropriate, in my view.

The link to Sarewitz is broken, but an association with Pielke is not a promising sign.

Shaun, my linkage of evolution to modern notions of progress was more of a sociological observation. Positivism was tied to mastery of nature, technology, and, for the likes of Comte, man too (Fuller’s actually a fan of Comte, Otto Neurath and Stephen Wolfram). It brought with it certain representations of the world - aesthetics, literature etc. eg. the film Gattaca.

I’m not saying that Darwinists aren’t doing a good job of explaining the world. They are. They should be encouraged. Fuller argues that this can be done with the help of ID, but his arguments have a sort of eeriely apolitical setting - as if dragging ID from its political foundations in evangelical Christianity is some sort of rational process.

And, what Liam said about ID as a social movement.

Hence will the ID debate will get traction in religious schools it won’t go much further in Australia.

Of course the mistake was to take the battle that one step further. Apparently pro-ID lawyers had been spoiling for a fight in the courts regarding ID. It is history now but it is worth noting that the Discovery Institute (one of the main ID backers) pulled out of the trail. I think there was an assumption that if they got a right-wing judge then they would win. Even a Bush appointed Lutheran saw through their shenanigans.

1. I disagree with the statement that evolution is about progress. The pattern of evolution is a bush with many twigs and branches. I don’t see that there is a notion of progress inherent in evolution. In the 19th century the idea that evolution was a ladder with humankind at the top, the best of all. Evolution is value neutral in that all it describes is how life got where it was. A notion of progress is a value implied by our minds not by nature. Whether via an asteroid or some catastrophic disease our grip on earth is as tenuous as all the species that have gone before us.

I also think atheism has nothing to do with evolution (or science). It is a personal metaphysics that people accept or reject for any number of reasons.

2. The Daniel Sarewitz review is offline so I can’t make real assessment. Mooney has criticized the left when it comes to politicizing science. Mooney’s argument is that the Republicans have taken it to whole new levels.

3. Fuller’s testimony was bunk to be perfectly honest. This post of mine I have a go at outlining how to determine what is good science and what is bad science. Science is not a democratic process. If you want admission you need to have results. That is something ID has not done. The refusal of admission for ID is not about privileged access but simply due to their refusal to actually do science.

And this is the problem with ID apologists. They argue that ID is being denied because of its religious motiviations. Balderdash. It is being denied because of its lack of substance.

I think science would benefit form a pluralistic, open approach. And that is the responsibility of scientists to communicate their ideas and encourage participation (which is become more common). However in the end what stands as science is what works.

I blame television and video games.