The War On Bullshit

The politically disgruntled and critical are often criticized as being negative and cynical, so for this week, I’ve decided to take a (semi)-positive look at the presidential election cycle – in particular, a glance at McCain’s environmentalism, however sporadically it may manifest itself. A true testament to the failed policies of past conservatives like Bush Sr. and Jr. is the sudden concern of Sen. John McCain on global climate change. In case you have not heard, McCain has for some time marketed himself as an environmental protector and an advocate for reducing carbon emissions in the United States.

It’s a great day in the United States when we’ve become liberal enough that a candidate from our conservative wing concerns himself with environmentalism, rather than the tired debate against environmentalists. Sure, I’ve got my problems with McCain – anyone who says he’ll stay in a war for the next two centuries has a few screws that need tightening – but it is inspiring to liberals to hear a conservative candidate for the presidency pledge to protect the environment, perhaps as much so as it is to have the first legitimate minority candidate nominated to represent the Democrats.

The Conservative Response

That being said, conservatives don’t seem to feel the same way. The purveyor of Republican propaganda, Rush Limbaugh, has gone on frequent tirades about the insanity of environmentalism. Conservative talk-show hosts have described climate change as a hoax and environmentalism as a mental disorder. Even the liberals are critical of his statements. After all, it’s hard to believe a candidate speaking in favor of environmentalism when that same candidate has a terrible 24 percent lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters. Which brings me to my next point…

The Problem: Politics or Conviction?

Unfortunately, as inspiring as it may be, it’s pure politics. Let’s keep in mind what McCain is trying to do here: be elected President. We should take his promises to protect the environment with a grain of salt. As George W. Bush focused on education, and southern Democrats are pro-life and vote to protect the Second Amendment, politicians have begun to realize they must attach themselves to at least one of the other side’s issues to be elected. How else would a candidate dupe the moderate Democrats into voting for a Republican this time around?

So, ye of the moderately liberal leaning, keep this in mind when you cast your ballots in November. Sure, McCain may institute his cap-and-trade policy to reduce carbon emissions, but when it really comes down to it, with whom will he side? If you want a history lesson, look at McCain in the mid-90s, when he sided with conservatives in undercutting the Environmental Protection Agency. If our next President is the esteemed Arizona Senator, don’t be surprised when he sides with big business over the Sierra Club.

Ben Stein, of Ferris Bueller fame, has finally done something to make me forget how much I enjoyed his droning hilarity in that film. He has brought so-called intelligent design to the forefront of public conversation once more, reviving one of the most widely-accepted hoaxes in the history of mankind.

This latest bit of nonsense is called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and features Stein interviewing a host of supposed academics and scientists, disgruntled because they are ostracized from academics because of their belief in a concept called ‘intelligent design,’ which, despite its name, is a theory featuring very little intelligence. Theatres showing the film are scarce (thankfully), so I have yet to see the documentary, but that’s not my concern for this week. My concern is intelligent design, and this notion that Stein and his fans have that this is somehow a valid theory worthy of merit or even consideration, when the truth is, the so-called academics who believe in it should be ostracized and laughed at. Let’s look at this ‘theory’ a little closer.

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution
Intelligent design is the belief that the development of life on Earth was guided by some intelligent being, rather than being governed by the random processes of inheritance, mutation, and natural selection. It is based strongly in a belief that god, or some incarnation of it, created the universe and has guided the development of mankind and, indeed, all species of animal on Earth. This is in opposition with the currently accepted theory of species development: neo-Darwinian evolution.

I’m going to go ahead and dumb this down, so you biologists out there, just keep quiet as I put things in layman’s terms. To the neo-Darwinian scientists, things happen something like this: cells randomly mutate all the time. Sometimes those mutations end up favorable to the life-form (i.e. beans gaining a resistance to a certain bug), and thus that life-form is able to reproduce more offspring and pass on that trait. In the same way, organisms which develop unfavorable mutations die out before they can reproduce, thus killing those bad genes off.

Theory vs. Bullshit
Neo-Darwinian evolution is what one calls a scientific ‘theory.’ Now, in common lingo, a theory can be just about any conjecture or opinion. In science, however, a theory is a testable prediction of natural phenomenon based on observable facts.

Neo-Darwinian evolution, for instance, is a theory to predict how new life-forms develop from old ones, based on facts from the fossil record and much of the work done in genetics and geological research. It is testable by looking at the fossils of connected species, and in fact, some of the more extraordinary research being done actually shows the evolution of quick-growing bacteria in action.

Here’s where we get to the big pile of smelly bullshit: intelligent design. Proponents of this theory say there’s nothing to explain where life began, and they argue that there are too many coincidences and improbabilities for evolution to occur randomly. While it is true that we have little evidence supporting any theories of how life began, deifying our own ignorance and calling it ‘god’ is not a scientific solution.

Intelligent design proponents try to replace all that is unknown with some vague deity. This does not create a valid scientific theory. This is superstition masked as science; theology pretending to be biology. God cannot be tested, seen, heard, or even smelled. To the scientist, it does not exist, as there is absolutely no evidence to support its existence.

Expelled for no Intelligence
Stein’s documentary makes the argument that academics who subscribe to intelligent design have been unfairly treated: ridiculed, not taken seriously, and even fired. I argue that they were treated fairly; they were laughed at as academics for believing in superstition.

The biologist who argues, despite all evidence to the contrary, that leprechauns are real would be laughed at. He would be ridiculed out of any legitimate conference. Why is intelligent design somehow worthy of merit, despite its basis in myth and superstition? If belief in intelligent design is accepted as science, we may as well begin teaching classes on dragons, proposing theories about the evolution of unicorns, and offering majors in Chupacabra Studies.

So, for those of you fooled by Stein’s documentary, just keep in mind what a theory is in science. Don’t accept this unfalsifiable nonsense as fact, for there is no intelligence in intelligent design. See it for what it is: superstition masquerading as biology.

At what point did liberal become a four-letter word in the United States of America? It seems strange to me that a country founded on its revolutionary ideals - a country which inspired much of the world to free itself from the bonds of British imperialism - could nurse a spirit of modern conservatism to the extent that it has almost become an insult to call people a liberal.

With the Presidential Push trudging along longer than any political season I’ve ever followed as a political pundit, I’ve been forced to listen to the conservative talking heads quite a bit, and I’ve noticed something. There are three words which, in the eyes of Rush And His Parrots, are perhaps the dirtiest, slimiest descriptors of human beings: communist, Muslim, and liberal.

Now, the first two, I can at least see where the animosity comes from. Our country was attacked by Muslim terrorists, and we were in a Cold War with communism for decades. Liberals, however, were the very founding fathers we so revere in American History classes. Don’t believe me? Let’s define some terms.

Liberal vs. Conservative
liberal (lib’er al, lib’rel), adj. 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. 2. designating or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform. 3. pertaining to, based on, or having views or policies advocating individual freedom of action and expression. 4. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies. 5. free from prejudice and bigotry; tolerant. 6. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.; open-minded. 7. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts.

conservative (ken sur’ve tiv), adj. 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Positive thinking and generosity a bad thing?
These are from Webster’s, and I think that’s a reliable enough source to focus my thesis sufficiently. I suppose I can understand disagreeing with current liberal politicians’ policies if you think the current system, unchanged and uncriticized, is okay. However, to use the word ‘liberal’ as if it is a bad thing goes against the very definition of the term if you don’t think everything is working right.

I don’t even know how to make this point clearer than the definition already has. “Favorable to progress or reform” certainly seems like a good trait in a politician or a person, if you don’t believe our government is functioning at its maximum capacity. I’m personally a big fan and advocate of “individual freedom of action and expression,” and I like to think I am “free from prejudice and bigotry.” Where does any of this become a bad thing?

Liberal as the American ideal
It seems to me, reading that definition, Webster could replace the entire liberal entry with a much more concise definition: one who believes in the American ideal. What could be more American than believing in a society free of bigotry; a government that is run by the people instead of a monarch; and a government which is favorable to progress and reform? So, no longer be afraid to self-identify as a liberal, all you real Americans. Don’t let the conservatives fool you. America was once the most liberal nation on Earth, and that’s what made the rest of the world emulate us. If the Adams cousins and John Hancock had been conservatives, we’d still be paying tea taxes to England.