Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Republican War on Science

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

ID-critic Chris Mooney’s latest book, The Republican War on Science, is now available: http://www.waronscience.com/home.php.

[UPDATE:] For more on Mooney, go here.

Comments
Why is science funding being done through the government anyway? I would much rather give to a superfund like the United Way so that if they started going down a road I didn't like I could just give my money elsewhere. johnnyb
What is the point about saying "the right" can't do this or that. "The left" can't even get to be President. jzs
I'm not sure that opposition to embryonic stem cell funding and to some political conclusions to issues in the environment constitute a war on science. I don't have any numbers available, but it seems that Bush increased funding for life sciences by a large amount in his first term. Didn't NIH get around a 50% increase? The increase wasn't big for the start of his second term (maybe 2%), but the president has more concerns then science funding. Reduction in science funding need not be explained through a hate of science, but other political concerns which override life science funding. Conspirator
I posted the following response to Chris Mooney on his website's forum: Chris Mooney - Author wrote:
Unfortunately, you fall into the trap of thinking there are only "two sides" on this issue. On the contrary, we have 1) the accepted theory of evolution 2) every different creation myth in history; 3) religion-dressed-up-as science tactics like "creation science" and "intelligent design." Only one of these explanations is recognized by the scientific community as being scientific in nature, and that's why only one should be presented in science classes.
Since when did administration of public school curriculum become the exclusive domain of the scientific community? We live in a democracy, Chris. Everyone participates and everyone, including those in the scientific community, get one vote. That vote from a member of the scientific community is exactly equal to the vote of the janitor that sweeps the floor in his Ivory Tower. Tough break, man. Get over it. DaveScot
Why does PaV have to resort to name calling? How does that further the discussion? Just because they do it at Panda's Thumb does not mean its right. hlwarren
Heh... "And now, backed in part by conservative Republicans like Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, creationism has been brought up to date by a far slicker form of antievolutionism, one that doesn't depend on absurdities like dinosaurs being herded onto Noah's ark and goes under the name of "intelligent design." All his points are irrelevent in the chapter preview. He rambles on and on about Bush's dishonest number concerning stem cell research while missing the entire ethical question that really needs to be addressed, and he also claims that Bush cannot be a defender or science because he said he supported creationism be taught along side of evolution (I'm not sure if he just means that Bush was allowing critiques of evolution in classromms). He shows us that... the left lies too, but then just declares the Right is worse for no reason at all. Ben Z
Did you say Mooney or Looney? [I was about to delete this remark, but then the second remark below would no longer make sense. I don't have any more affection for Mooney than you do. But staying on topic and forgoing the name-calling is a more effective strategy for defeating people like Mooney. --WmAD] PaV

Leave a Reply