The American Spectator : Very Political Science

Text Size

Very Political Science

Ideology with charts and graphs and a very low tolerance threshold for disagreement.

Academic “studies” purporting to show conservatives to be knot-heads and know-nothings are hardy perennials on campus. And the media love to whoop them up. That’s why the headline in my local Tampa paper, “Faith in science wanes on right,” caught my eye. And not just because science is based on evidence, not faith.

The story, taken from the Los Angeles Times, starts thus: “As the Republican presidential race has shown, the conservatives who dominate the primaries are deeply skeptical of science — making Newt Gingrich, for one, regret he settled onto a couch with Nancy Pelosi to chat about global warming.”

Wow! What a lot of nonsense and misdirection for just 39 words. First, conservatives, politicians or usefully employed, are no more skeptical of science than liberals, moderates, progressives, libertarians, royalists, or vegetarians. And there are endless reasons to regret sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi, which most conservatives wouldn’t do on a dare.

What, more like who, conservatives have learned to be skeptical of, and folks of other philosophical persuasions should also keep an eye on, are scientists who diddle numbers, distort evidence, draw conclusions well beyond the evidence, pronounce on matters outside of their field of expertise, and cover up contrary evidence in order to retail controversial theories like global warming. And to achieve other things like tenure, promotion, media coverage, and grants without end, amen.

We’ve had ample evidence from East Anglia and elsewhere to demonstrate that some scientists are not members of a truth-seeking priesthood, but ordinary sinful humanity with agendas to flog and self-interests to serve. Many erode their credibility by behaving more like activists than like scientists. Being skeptical of these individuals is prudent, and not the same thing as being skeptical of science.

Of course Gingrich did more than “chat” with Pelosi. He joined her to say that global warming is a genuine threat to the planet and government should do something about it. Neither of these things has been established, but both would be a boon to the left’s agenda of taxing and regulating. Newt later said his warming warning was the stupidest thing he ever said. I’ll take his word for this, though Newt-watchers know there is stiff competition for this honor.

The Times story is based on a study, published in the April issue of the American Sociological Review, by one Gordon Gauchat, a post-doctoral fellow at the University of North Carolina. The study claims that in a survey administered first in 1972 and again in 2010, self-described conservatives show a sharp drop in confidence in science, while liberals still give science the same two thumbs up they did in Tricky Dick days.

The confusion this study promotes becomes obvious when you read the survey question: to wit: “As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them [the Scientific Community]?” (Emphasis added; brackets in the original.]

By the time we get to the study’s conclusions, a lack of confidence in people running the institutions of science, some of whom have not had the greatest press of late, has morphed into a lack of confidence in science itself. The two things are so obviously different it’s a wonder one of Gauchat’s undergraduate research assistants didn’t call attention to the discrepancy before things got out of hand.

I contacted Gauchat by phone and asked about this difference between confidence in individuals and confidence in an institution. His answer was long, courteous, and earnest, but never addressed the critical difference between any group of Herr Professor Doktors and science itself.

Alert TAS readers will not be surprised, as I was not, to learn that another of Gauchat’s proxies for conservative rejection of the authority of science is conservatives’ greater skepticism about global warming and about Charles Darwin’s explanation of how we got from there to here.

There is every reason to be skeptical of the global warming theory and the grant-sucking, alarmist, highly politicized, and intolerant industry it has spawned. Climate is one of the most complex subjects in the world. It would be very difficult to parse even if scientists, science journalists, regulatory bureaucrats, politicians, and environmentalists were playing it straight. Many of them aren’t.

The studies that supposedly prove the earth is warming, that this warming is different from the warming and cooling periods the Earth has undergone since there has been an Earth, and that this is man-caused through the agency of greenhouse gases, are all based on computer models. Models that can be influenced by the assumptions built in on the front end, and by factors not controlled for. Many of the projections these models have made have been wrong.

The greenhouse theory of warming is plausible. But the history of science is full of plausible sounding explanations of things that turned out to be false. If conservatives are skeptical of what may well turn out to be the biggest science-based hoax in history, this is to their credit.

And speaking of plausible, Charles Darwin’s theory might have had a surface plausibility when it was first sprung on the world in 1859. But what we know now of the mind-boggling complexity of bio-chemistry, and the continuing holes in the fossil record, make his explanation of the history of life on Earth no longer credible.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Larry Thornberry is a writer in Tampa.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (65) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Darin| 4.23.12 @ 7:50AM

The left's idea of "science" is such crockery as macro evolution (one species changing into another), man-caused global warming (completely ignoring the effects as the sun), and the notion that an unborn person is not a human being (ignoring basic biology) and thus has no right to life. And yet the right is accused of being anti-science. Sorry, but you can't agrue with stupid.

Alan Brooks| 4.23.12 @ 6:35PM

Abortion is a minor issue blown out of proportion. The Left has its sob sisters and brothers, you have your people over wittle unborn childwen. Boo hoo. De po' little dearies, sniff sniff.

You lose so much sleep over them, don't you?

Occam's Tool| 4.23.12 @ 7:41PM

I dunno. I do over 100 hours of Continuing Medical Education a year so I can teach my APRNs and their students. I spend thousands on CME and textbooks each year.

Liberals are scum. Like Alan Brooks, worrying about his retirement and his entitlements and not realizing that he killed the workers who would have helped continue entitlements with his support of abortions.

Al Adab| 4.23.12 @ 8:06PM

O/T:
Let us ask Brooks, "If six million makes a holocaust, what does 53 million make?

Alan Brooks| 4.23.12 @ 8:38PM

Children can be adopted from foreign nations (in the case of Mexico, a country practically part of America by now), those countries will continue having babies they can't take care of.

Please stop the crocodile tears you cry over abortion, you only really care about your families, and lose no sleep over abortions.

Alan Brooks| 4.23.12 @ 8:41PM

..."not realizing that he killed the workers who would have helped continue entitlements with his support of abortions."

But you'd like to terminate entitlements, or pare them down drastically, so here is your chance to do it: retain Roe v Wade and entitlements will be defunded.

Molly McGee| 4.23.12 @ 10:14PM

I'll betcha you'd abort a DEM for a dime, huh Doc?

Jive Bomber| 4.24.12 @ 3:08AM

Abortion kills the unborn regardless of their never-to-be-realized politcal persuasion

Gary B| 4.23.12 @ 7:57AM

Luckily, the peril of global warming is last on the list of concerns among likely voters who get up and go to work in the morning. It's bouncing along the bottom along with concerns about free contraceptives.

c. j. acworth| 4.23.12 @ 9:07AM

I think that those who most vehemently flog global warming and Darwinism are most at fault for the growing lack of trust in scientists. People aren't stupid, and when they see scientists distorting the data (ala climategate) or going over the top in their persecution of those who advocate Intelligent Design theory (as when long-time, respected researchers at JPL get fired for such advocacy) it casts a shadow on all researchers. How many times have we heard prominent figures predict immenent eco-doom in 10 years, only to wait ten years and find that things are better than ever? After a while, you just tune them all out on the theory that they are just trying to get another government funded gravy train going. As R.Emmett Tyrell would say, "The crisis continues".

DTOM!| 4.23.12 @ 9:11AM

In 1977 I purchased a brand new Ford van, telling my wife, 'We'll never be able to get a vehicle like this again, because we'll run out of oil!'

Fool me once, your fault;
twice, my fault;
a hundred thousand times takes a lot of bureaucrats!

DTOM!| 4.23.12 @ 9:07AM

Actually, I would say that the only evolution Mr. Darwin's Theory has clearly been proved to explain is our culture's de-evolution from Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart to American Idol.

Gary B| 4.23.12 @ 10:58AM

DTOM!,

That's not only very funny, but it's dead on.

KennesawJack| 4.23.12 @ 6:44PM

I think it is probably more akin to the de-evolution from Booker T. Washington to Mike Tyson.

Scorpio51| 4.23.12 @ 9:33AM

I am linking to an article that details Newt Gingrich's stance.

http://www.politijim.com/2012/.....newts.html

Von Mises Jr| 4.23.12 @ 9:44AM

Conservatives rely on true science, while liberals rely on confused propaganda.
Last week, Perp the twerp brought up Ayn Rand. He obviously knows nothing about Rand except that she wrote "Atlas Shrugged," and he rejects people not paying gladly for his EBT card.
He refused to answer my question about "Objectivism," so I will explain it. "Objectivism" is a Unifying theory utilizing cognition and volition to proactively view the world. Cognition means to perceive or know something. Volition means to choose or resolve. So every general theory must marry with other known theories, or they must be rectified.
Here is why liberals cannot accept "Objectivism." They believe that the earth and ecosystems are complex, inter-related fragile systems that self-regulate. Man can only upset the balance.
But their naive understanding of economics is that man cannot choose what is best for himself and his family. His individual choices lead to chaos and ruin. So he needs a ruler like Mao, Chavez or Obama to make the right choices for them.
It is a logical conundrum. How could nature be something that must not be coerced or interfered with, when man (part of nature) must be coerced and interfered with?
Von Mises and Hayek both point this out. This leads to the fact that Perp does not know or cannot accept Mises, Hayek or Rand’s Unifying theories.

Now you are off the hook for answering this riddle, troll.

Vern Crisler| 4.23.12 @ 11:24AM

Well, I would only demur in putting Ayn Rand up there in the same class as Mises and Hayek. I disagree with Murray Rothbard on just about everything except his economic views, but his critique of Ayn Rand and the Randians is delicious stuff.

Al Adab| 4.23.12 @ 12:13PM

It is not that Conservatives reject science, but rather that they do not worship it. The scientific method is a great tool but not to be confused with political decision making. The Left uses science to further its goal of central control. Everything that can be defined as a "problem" must be solved through state action. It is that action and reaction which Conservatives oppose.

Von Mises Jr| 4.23.12 @ 1:19PM

Vern, I do not place Rand on the same level with Mises and Hayek, although if you read "Objectivism" (unlike Perp the twerp), you cannot have anything but respect for her intellect. I read several books by Rothbard, and have a couple more to read. He is a economic genius, so his personal traits do not concern me.
Many of the socialist thinking men were scum, such as Rousseau, Marx, Wilson, LBJ and if Obama could think, he would make the list. That doesn't mean their ideas should not be examined for value, not matter how fecless the individual.

Vern Crisler| 4.23.12 @ 2:10PM

Well, I'm not sure what it is about Ayn Rand's intellect that is so great.

Vern Crisler| 4.23.12 @ 6:04PM

I should point out that Alisa didn't hesitate in putting herself in the company of Aristotle and Aquinas, the three A's.....

KennesawJack| 4.23.12 @ 6:57PM

In reply to both Von Mises, Jr. and Vern (whose intellect I have come to very much respect on this site) I would refer both of you to a letter von Mises wrote to Ayn Rand in the late 50's commenting on Atlas Shrugged. He held her, as I do, in very high regard. You can probably find the letter online somewhere. I would not hesitate to put her in the company of both Hayek and von Mises. I think that we sometimes, because of the genre she used to discuss her philosophy, are a bit to dismissive of the true depth of the woman. But, I suppose we can amicably agree to disagree on this. (If either of you were a liberal, the descriptor "amicably" would not be accurate, would it?)

Vern Crisler| 4.23.12 @ 7:17PM

Thanks KennesawJack. Yes, I've read the Mises letter. All of us, even Mises, are entitled to be wrong once in a while. There's also a Rothbard letter out there, too, praising her to the limits. He must have been embarrassed about that one. Only a year or two later he changed his mind, and mocked the whole movement.

KennesawJack| 4.23.12 @ 7:45PM

Well, I'm not an Economist, simply an entrepreneur trying to survive Obamarx (so far, successfully), but I think Mises was right as was Rothbard, the first time. I would add to the scales, when comparing them, the number of of people who have read and been influenced by Rand as opposed to Hayek and von Mises. While some of us have spent time with all of them, far more have visited and been influenced by only her writings so that, in itself, should serve to elevate her in the esteem of all conservatives.

Von Mises Jr| 4.23.12 @ 8:56PM

Thanks KennesawJack,
I have read "Objectivism" and it is philosophy rather than economics. I found it very informative. Mises also wrote extensively about philosophy, so there is a connection. Mises wrote more about socialism and its forms in "Socialism," "Theory and History," and "The Epistemological Problems with Economics." His perspective is one of fleeing Hitler for his life, so this is his focus.
Rand is more of an Aristotle type of analysis of existence, truth and essence. I agree that Vern is a very smart gentleman. I am simply stating that they are all great, and comparing the best wine you ever drank to the best steak you ever ate is of little value. You have the wine with the steak.

KennesawJack| 4.23.12 @ 10:38PM

That is called cutting to the nub. Excellent!

Vern Crisler | 4.24.12 @ 2:47AM

Thanks Von Mises Jr.

Personally, the only book by Randians that I ever thought was of any philosophical value was by the excommunicated Randian David Kelley. It's called *Evidence of the Senses*. Very fine book, though most philosophers have little time for Ayn Rand's mixture of Aristotle and Nietszche. Kelley's book, however, is well worth the read.

JimH| 4.24.12 @ 9:43AM

Von, Vern, A, and Kennesawjack, thank you. Every once in a while amidst the name calling, race baiting and general blathering on this site there is sometimes an exchange of views between intelligent people which is a real pleasure to read. I wasn’t able to read this until this morning hence the late post. I’ve read Von Mises, Rand and Rothbard. In fact I met Rothbard a few times. Without having to agree with all of what each propounded, I think you could say the Von Mises provided the economic underpinning; Rothbard the political and Rand tried to provide the philosophical foundation for a free society. Rand tried to build on Aristotle. I think Objectivism is internally logically consistent, but Rand made some major errors in the essence of human nature which is the foundation to the philosophy.

Molly McGee| 4.23.12 @ 10:22PM

Troll, huh? Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, an anonymous repuke.

Bob S| 4.24.12 @ 1:06AM

Molly, are you schizophrenic? You were completely describing yourself in that post. You might as well have been talking to yourself there.

Molly McGee| 4.24.12 @ 2:20AM

I'm no repuke, dork.

Molly McGee| 4.23.12 @ 10:23PM

P.S. Ayn Rand was a Godless slut.

JT| 4.23.12 @ 10:10AM

To the eco-facists, man is NOT natural, thats the get around.

Robert McClain | 4.23.12 @ 10:16AM

Only true-believers continue to posit the nonsense of trans-speciation. Evolution remains unproved and unprovable. The only reason trans-speciation is still believed and taught is because the only alternative explanation for the plethora of distinct and complex life forms is special creation...which to the Evos is unthinkable.

KennesawJack| 4.23.12 @ 7:00PM

Applause is in order, here.

Drunken Sailor| 4.23.12 @ 10:45AM

Cue the liberal/Troll outrage in

3......2.......1

Scott| 4.23.12 @ 3:31PM

Meh.

JT| 4.23.12 @ 10:48AM

They genrally don't appear before they get out of bed at noon.

fmm| 4.23.12 @ 11:28AM

I spent 33 years doing research for private companies where the facts had to be correct to develop and get a product out the door. Not a one of these global warming "scientists" could have successfully done that type of work because it relied on facts only, not hyperbole and political bias.

Vern Crisler| 4.23.12 @ 11:32AM

Usually, in the past the Left's mistrusted science. This was because "science" and "scientists" who gave us more effective forms of chlorine gas and mustard gas, as well as the bomb technologies to blow up whole cities.

Conservatives reject scientISM, not science. And they don't like it when science is coerced into supporting political views, e.g., the Nazi's vulgar Darwinism, racial hygiene theories, today's global warming hysteria, etc.

Obviously, these studies are trying to use "science" to prove political positions, just as "science" was used to prove that the Nazis could get rid of humans who suffered handicaps, retardation, etc.

And there's the usual recycled psychological theories put out to show that people who vote for conservative candidates are suffering from some mental disorder.

Same ol', same ol'....

gearjammer| 4.23.12 @ 11:41AM

Remember poor C Reeve on that stage at DNC convention telling us how he'd be able to walk again if only the rotten republicans would give even more money to ' SCIENCE ", same with MJFox. The dems use science as a tool for more amd more money for the MACHINE. The DPPM-the democrat party political machine. They are raging animals who most consume the positive product of all others on earth.

Doctor Right| 4.23.12 @ 12:27PM

As a Conservative Christian with a Bachelor of Science in Biology and a halfway decent understanding of the incredible complexity of life on this planet - particularly human life - I chuckle when I hear those on the left say that Conservatives are "anti-science."

WHAT does that mean, after all? "Science" is a pretty road term.

For example, I don't reject DNA. Why would I? It's been proven to exist, and we've uncovered how it functions. The left would have you believe that DNA - a highly advanced code that makes the binary system in your new iPAD look positively primitive - somehow supports their view of the origins of life, when in fact, it does no such thing.

Codes do not self-generate; ask anyone at the NSA. If anything, the ordered complexity of DNA and it's coding process point towards a Creator, not away from one...but I digress.

People of Faith are not against "science." What we're against are unproven theories and hypotheses masquerading as fact, especially if those "facts" are used to manipulate and coerce people into accepting ideas and values that they reject.

And we're also against "scientists" manipulate data, exaggerate their finding, distort the meaning, and basically use very unscientific reasoning to push an agenda, political or otherwise.

Anti-science? That's the lefts' domain. Always has been, especially when it comes to politics.

Al Adab| 4.23.12 @ 1:21PM

A cogent explanation Doctor:
Conservatives object to the worship of Science and its use to justify central control and government interference with liberty.

Newton was right that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The Left defines everything as a "problem" which only government can "solve". The issues change with each year bringing a new fad. But the proposed "solution" is always the same... less freedom and more government control.

Von Mises Jr| 4.23.12 @ 4:07PM

Doctor Right, I am not a scientist but a lover of the social science of economics. In the physical sciences, it is even easier to discover one's bias toward an outcome than in the social sciences. In physical sciences, math and logic; experiments can disprove your theory. But in the social sciences, one's desire to prove your predisposed notion is harder to uncover.
It is impossible to isolate and keep all other things equal. It is impossible to prove cause and effect even less than in the physical sciences. But one can use math and logic to reach conclusions, and the left rarely finds this an s constraint. They come up with absurd relationships. Paul Slugman actually blamed the current economic malaise on Reagan. It is apparently a twenty-five year delayed effect and has nothing to do with Clinton and Reno's "affordable housing" or Obama spending us into oblivion. So it is useless to talk to leftist radicals, but instead only necessary to keep them from power.
Al is correct that their theories always lead to them controlling your liberty and money.

Bob S| 4.23.12 @ 1:23PM

Good science is always skeptical. The scientists who have made the biggest discoveries are the ones who questioned the status quo. See: Newton, Einstein, Schrodinger, Feynman, etc.

Scientists may not like to admit it, but they often put too much faith into one idea to accept the validity of others. The two main examples of current science are string theory and dark matter. String theory opponents often charge string theorists with pursuing a theory that can't possibly be tested in reality. This makes it not science. But, the string theorists insist on their faith in the theory and waste the resources of entire university physics departments, and often waste government dollars too.

Dark matter is an even greater leap of faith. Galaxy rotation curves didn't fit our current theories, so instead of looking for new ones scientists insisted that there must be something invisible and undetectable there that is affecting gravity on a galactic level. This dark matter has never been detected, despite more and more government money wasted on trying to detect it. It is their faith in dark matter that elicited surprise when a recent study deduced that dark matter, if it exists, does not exist in any appreciable quantity in the solar system. What a convenient explanation as to why those experiments always failed to detect any. Yet, these fools are quick to strike down other alternative theories that say gravity acts differently, rather than accept the fact that dark matter does not exist.

But scientist insist that because they are the ones who "know", the public dare not question their theories or methods. They shoot down any accusation that they have just as much faith, if not more, in science than they accuse the usual suspects (conservatives, religious people, etc) of not having. They refuse to acknowledge that their own faith in theories might cloud their judgment and insert bias in their work, and when other people try to show them the truth they dismiss them with derisive names like "deniers".

Of course, we all know this double-standard is endemic in progressivism, and progressivism long ago co-opted science to justify their own actions, no matter how despicable or untrue they may be.

Mike G| 4.23.12 @ 4:34PM

You're right. If people accepted everything the scientists say, then the earth might still be the center of the universe, and it might still be flat. The basis for ALL science must logically be skepticism.

Anna Keppa| 4.24.12 @ 9:56PM

Pure hogwash, at least when you speak of astronomy. Go into a pop astronomy mag such as "Sky & Telescope" or "Astronomy" and you will find the debate as to whether dark matter is "real", or a failure to fully understand gravity. There is certainly evidence either way., but the preponderance leans toward the current HYPOTHESIS that it's "real".

If you want to argue otherwise, have at it! After all, hypothesizing that observed phenomena indicate that we don't fully understand gravity is itself the kind of "new theory" you say science reflexively rejects.

BTW, if what you say were true, there would be no revolution in astronomy and cosmology; we would still be back when there was supposedly only one galaxy, our own. You have obviously not kept up with what's been going on.

Joe D.| 4.23.12 @ 2:17PM

Very good, Larry. Their theories are just that, theories not science. It takes more faith and less intelligence to believe all of this so call science, we should call them flat earthers. This shows once again how liberal/socialist relie on feeling not facts. And then try to intimidate the realist, us into there over blown theories.

Molly McGee| 4.23.12 @ 10:32PM

Theory isn't "just theory", Einstein. First comes a hypothesis. After multiple experiments which test the hypothesis time after time, and when successful - to support our hypothesis - we come to "theory".
(_?_)

Bob S| 4.24.12 @ 1:02AM

Molly, are you giving Purp/Franklin the day off today, or did Media Matter fire him and install you instead because he never succeeded in persuading anyone?

By the way, you won't succeed either, Einstein.

Molly McGee| 4.24.12 @ 2:21AM

No... your mom had to go back to rehab - I'm filling in for her.

Vern Crisler | 4.24.12 @ 2:52AM

Molly, it's hypothesis, experiment, explain why results were minimal, then ask for grant.

Molly McGee| 4.24.12 @ 1:00PM

Thank God you weren't in charge during our vaccination age.

SetOurChildrenFree | 4.23.12 @ 3:24PM

I'm sorry, but I'm a scientist, and I'll debate any liberal out there and make 99% of them look like the fools that they are. Conservatives are the ONLY ones who insist on reliance upon the scientific method as well as FACTS. The liberals are the ones who rely on emotion only. I have yet to debate one of them who cited factual information to back their specious claims.

Mike G| 4.23.12 @ 4:35PM

How often do they revert to name-calling rather than debating?

WillyP | 4.23.12 @ 5:08PM

Anecdotal evidence would suggest something approaching 100%.

Molly McGee| 4.23.12 @ 10:33PM

Sorry - you're a lab tech at the very most.

Bob S| 4.24.12 @ 1:03AM

Which is still orders of magnitude above being a Media Matters peon like yourself.

Molly McGee| 4.24.12 @ 2:22AM

Wow. Are you funny. not.

Ken| 4.23.12 @ 6:28PM

Great article except for that bit of Newt bashing in the beginning. Newt might have his faults, but in comparison to Romney he's Ronald Reagan.

Molly McGee| 4.23.12 @ 10:35PM

How right you are. Reagan suffered dementia early in life.

Anna Keppa| 4.24.12 @ 10:02PM

Baloney. He was 83 when diagnosed. If you want to believe his son's anecdotal evidence....well, of course you would. But his biographers have said that while he "slowed down" as President, his diaries and writings showed no sign of mental deterioration.

Anna Keppa| 4.24.12 @ 9:57PM

Compared to Obama, Romney IS Ronald Reagan.

POST American| 4.24.12 @ 3:23AM

"America better watch it
or in a couple of decades
we're going to be a minstrel show
---for RED China."
-GORE VIDAL
(1985)

---OUR entire CFR-Globalist saturated
establishment from the past 2 decades,
across the boards, should be dismissed
from public life ---and drawn up before

----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012---------------

It is THAT BAD.

"Traitors are the plague."
-Cicero

"Understand, Globalism, 'Free Trade',
TREASON and EUGENICS are ALWAYS
intertwined. ----ALWAYS."
-Informed radio online

Make that --ABSOLUTELY-- ALWAYS.

The signs, the figure is CLEAR:
Globalist TREASON's at the helm.

--------------The Republic has FALLEN---------------

evo| 5.17.12 @ 5:08PM

In the past couple of centuries no evidence has been presented that refutes or even casts doubt on evolution. The strides in biology and related fields over the past couple of decades have been based on understanding evolution and have provided powerful confirmation of the theory. It is therefore unlikely that creationists and IDists (a group rife with fraud and dishonesty) will displace evolution with another theory (which they have neglected to propose) any time in the foreseeable future.

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|114 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|126 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|61 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|113 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|4 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|72 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|18 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Alan O’Day, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 12:26AM

Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real

Quin Hillyer | 5.19.13

Good New Book: ‘Precipice’