Rick Santorum is a Dolt (Unscientific Polling Edition)

While it seems increasingly unlikely that Rick Santorum will not get the GOP nod for president (for which I give thanks unto God), his suprisingly successful campaign will probably mean we get to hear from him for years to come.  Which, if it’s like his column at the Philadelphia Inquirer, will mean years more of doltitude masquerading as serious (and reverent) thought.

Such as the following article — a month old, but recently brought to my attention — on how Science is really a Religion and therefore we should only believe the True Religion of the Bible instead of Science because That’s What People Say in Surveys.

No, really, that’s what passes as a viable GOP candidate for president these days.

So, Rick, tell us about The Elephant in the Room: Challenging science dogma:

Questioning the scientific consensus in pursuit of the truth is an important part of how science has advanced through the centuries.

Well, Rick, that’s true enough for starters.

But what happens when the scientific consensus becomes an ideology that trumps the pursuit of truth? Answer: Those making legitimate inquiries are ostracized, the careers of dissenters are destroyed, and debate is stifled.

Cue the Wickersham Brothers!  There’s ideology trumping the pursuit of truth going on! Not to mention irony!

Unfortunately, I am referring not only to the current proponents of the theory of man-made global warming. In 2001, I offered a legislative amendment about teaching the subject of evolution. I caught more flak for this simple amendment than for almost anything else I championed in the Senate. What heresy did I propose?

Nice use of the word “heresy”.  Plus also “ideology” and “ostracizing” and “dissenters”.  Because that make it sound like, yes, this is the Old Style Medieval Church burning heretics at the stake over theological views (look, more irony!).

Here is the full text:

“Good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.”

It was so radical a concept that, less than an hour after it’s unveiling, liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy signed on to it. He said during the debate that my amendment’s language was “completely consistent with what represents the central values of this body. We want children to be able to speak and examine various scientific theories on the basis of all of the information that is available to them.”

My amendment passed 91-8. The next day, the High Priests of Darwinism went berserk. How dare the Senate suggest there is any controversy surrounding evolution? The amendment, they argued, was an attempt to bring God into the classroom.

While your proposed amendment is less egregious than some I’ve seen, it’s not a science topic.  It’s a history of science topic, maybe.  Or perhaps a rhetoric or philosophy topic. Or even a social science or current events topic.

In looking at Ted Kennedy’s statement (and, really, you’re going to argue that in this case we should listen to Ted Kennedy?), while I agree that students should be exposed to looking at “scientific theories,” that’s not what your amendment was about.  It was about teaching “why this subject generates so much continuing controversy” from “philosophical or religious claims.”

But those claims aren’t science.  Political controversy isn’t science.  Science is science.  Teaching that “Science says evolution is real, but some people say the Bible says we were all created in seven days, so there’s a controversy” isn’t teaching science.

But it is, in fact, an attempt to bring God (and the family-grown respect for the Bible) into the classroom to argue against science.

Kennedy quickly recanted and vowed to have the amendment stricken from the reported language of the final bill. It wasn’t.

So … what came of all that?

A recent Gallup poll found that only 14 percent of Americans agreed that “humans developed over millions of years” and “God had no part.” A Zogby poll this year found that 78 percent of Americans agreed that schoolteachers “should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.” The same poll also found that 86 percent of self-identified liberals agreed that “teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory.” But the scientific “community” claims there is no controversy, and that debate should be banned.

Rick, let me say this slowly so that you understand.  In the scientific community (the collection of established, published, peer-checked, educated, well-researched, professional scientists in the world), there is no controversy over evolution.

Oh, there’s some controversy over over the mixture of mechanisms (natural selection, various types of mutation) and timing, just as there is some controversy (a/k/a lack of complete agreement) over particle physics and a unified field theory.  But even among scientists who disagree on how precisely the Gravity force is related to Electro-magnetism, nobody questions that when you drop an apple it falls to the ground.  Similarly, even among folks who debate about how precisely evolution has operated over the millennia, there’s no question that the general process of evolution is a true one.

That the American public doesn’t universally “believe” in evolution is no more meaningful, from a scientific standpoint, than that it doesn’t universally “believe” that you can’t travel faster than the speed of light (“I saw it on Star Trek!”). Science is not about belief, opinion, or public polls.  If nothing else, that demonstrates the need for more scientific education, not “teaching the controversy.”

It is one thing for ideologically driven science to indoctrinate children in classrooms.

Evolution is not an “ideology.”  Nor is it driven by ideology.  I do understand you have some understanding of being “ideology-driven,” but I think you’re projecting, Rick.

Evolutionary science is also not a “doctrine.”  While we’re at it, it’s not a “religion” or an “advertising campaign” or a “curious whim.”  While the scientific community is, in fact, made up of humans, it is a self-correcting system to overcome conservatism of opinion and initial resistance to iconclastic new ideas.  It is, as much as any human institution can be, fact-driven, as its own track record demonstrates.

It is another for politicians to use science to destroy national economies and redistribute global wealth. I refer, of course, to the latest scientific non-controversy, man-made global warming.

Yes, Rick, it’s all a big conspiracy to “destroy national economies and redistribute global wealth.”  Ideology-driven, much?

Climate change’s Pharisees …

Oooh, nice Biblical slander. Classy, Rick!

… reassure us that the global-warming science is still settled.

Settled as in “the climate science community is agreed that there is overall global warming and climate change occuring, and that it has a signficant man-made component”?  Yes, yes it is “settled.”

Precise mechanisms, rates, predicted trends and impacts?  There’s disagreement still, but the fundamental proposition is, in fact, agreed upon by the vast majority of scientists who actually are knowledgeable in the subject area.

Never mind recent revelations of gross misconduct on the part of Britain’s Climatic Research Unit.

What “gross misconduct” are you talking about, Rick?  I mean, that sounds good, but if you’re regurgitating the “Climategate” kerfuffle, then you’re just perpetuating mistruths. Again.

Never mind its repeated refusal to release vital climate data. And never mind the legitimate questions that climate-change skeptics have been asking for some time. There’s nothing to see here; move along.

No, there is nothing to see here, except smear campaigns, ginned-up controversies, grasping at straws, big money trying to protect its interests, and people trying to turn science into Bible School.

Yet we all know that the world has been both much hotter and much colder than it is today, and that temperatures have changed dramatically over the millennia for a multitude of reasons.

True. Also, meaningless.

And there is so much we don’t know about this complex field, …

… that we might as well not use what we do know, cross our fingers, and hope for the best?

…. which is made even more difficult by our inability to make predictions and test climate hypotheses, except with computer simulations that have questionable assumptions built in.

Questionable insofar as you don’t care for the questions they raise, Rick?

Note that we can, in fact, make productions and test climate hypotheses, Rick.  Pretty easily, in fact.  We can do it in real time (we have, in fact, been talking about climate change for a decade or two, and continue to test models that were developed back then on current observations), and we can do it historically (hypothesize, then see how the predictions fit what’s happened for the last hundred years or two or three).

It’s not quite like pouring two test tubes into a flask and seeing if it blows up, but it’s basic science, Rick.

Given this uncertainty, …

As you interpret it.

… I think most Americans find the experts’ cocksureness unsettling.

Because you keep hammering away at it as a holy cause, and other hammer away at it because it stands to cost them money.

Also, the experts are hardly “cocksure.”  But a nice slur, Rick.

Despite the bravado and billions of dollars in media hype supporting the climate alarmists, only 37 percent of respondents agreed that man is causing global warming in a recent Rasmussen poll.

Really, Rick?  “Billions of dollars in media hype?” Who’s been spending billions of dollars in media hype?  Maybe the Koch Bros., but I don’t see “Global Warming Is Your Fault! Give Us Your SUV!” commercials on during Prime Time anywhere, Rick.

As to the Rasmussen Poll (never mind Rasmussen tends to trend conservative), again, science and reality are not determined to beliefs, opinions, or polling. Polls over scientific reality have more to do with emotions, half-remembered high school chemistry classes, stereotypes of poindextery professors in lab coats who forget to tie their shoes, and pundits decrying climate change for unscientific reasons.

Not that I don’t think the numbers are shocking, but they don’t mean the science is wrong. Nor, if it was 98% did agree with it would it mean the science is right.

Why? Well, maybe because Americans don’t like being told what to believe.

Perhaps you should look at your own poll numbers, then, Rick.

Maybe because we have learned to be skeptical of “scientific” claims, …

Because some dolts run around saying, “Scientific claims are hurting our feelings and disagreeing with our religion, so they must be wrong and scientists must be poopyheads!”

… particularly those at war with our common sense

Everybody knows the world is flat, Rick. And man will never be able to fly. And rockets can’t move through space because there’s nothing for the exhaust to push against. And if you eat mold you’ll just get sick. And one little bomb couldn’t possibly destroy a city.

“Common sense” doesn’t determine scientific truths, either, Rick.

… like the Darwinists’ …

I love it when Paulists call believers in evolution Darwinists.

… telling us for decades …

Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859. It’s been a bit more than just “decades,” Rick.

… that we are just a slightly higher form of life than a bacterium that is here purely by chance, …

Evolutionary science doesn’t offer up value judgments like “just,” or “slightly” (or even “higher”). Nor does it assert that humans are here “purely by chance.”

It does say that humans and bacteria are both forms of life that have evolved from earlier forms, and that (as with all science) it is not necessary to posit (nor deny) a divine intelligence in the process.  That’s about it.

…or the Environmental Protection Agency’s informing us last week that man-made carbon dioxide – a gas that humans exhale and plants need to live, a gas that represents less than 0.1 percent of the atmosphere – is a dangerous pollutant threatening to overheat the world.

The goofiness goes off the scale here, Rick.

Are you suggesting that increases in carbon dioxide are not, in fact, dangerous?  That you could live with a plastic bag over your head, for example?

Are you suggesting that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas that can trap sunlight and cause heating?  (That, by the way, has nothing to do with climate change, but is basic, observable, recreatable science.)

Are you suggesting that CO2 is only present from human (or animal) exhalations?  Are you suggesting that the EPA is going to try and regulate breathing so as to control global warming?

Are you suggesting that ordinary substances, even if present in excess amounts, cannot be considered a pollutant?

What do you actually mean, Rick?  Why is this so hard for you to understand? What part of the above do you not actually agree with?

In some respects, the case for evolution is improving: We may indeed have evolved to the point where we can detect hot air of a different kind.

Zing! Now there’s a witty way to settle a scientific argument!

Yeesh.