Phil Platt over at Bad Astronomy went off on politics again today. Once again stating the Republicans are destroying science. He does state "IF" the Democrats behave the same, he will take them on as well. He then cites as his evidence a resolution by South Dakota Republicans supporting creatiionism. This comes along with "other issues". One of the primary "other issues" has been stem cell research. Everyone seems to pretty much agree this has been one of the centers of "the Republican war on science". What no one wants to do is look at reality. Here’s the funding levels for the NIH, ranked by by funding increases for the period of 2003-2007. The keep this post from blowing Typepad’s servers, I’ll just list the Top 10 increases in funding:
| Influenza | 249% | |
|
109% | |
|
100% | |
|
95% | |
|
89% | |
|
60% | |
|
53% | |
|
50% | |
|
50% |
That’s right, Human Embryonic Stem Cell research is the fourth most increased funded program out of the 210 listed. The asterisk here of course is that it was NEVER FUNDED BEFORE 2002. The "Republican Congress" Phil cites passed that budget, not the South Dakota Republican Party. Yesterday the "Republican US Senate" passed a resolution regarding expanding stem cell funding into new areas. Now, if Phil’s going to lump ALL legislation in the lap of the "Republican Congress" regardless of who’s doing what, then the Republicans should get credit for passing it. Some voted for it, some voted against it. But, the bottom line is there is no such thing as the "Republican Congress". There are more Republicans than Democrats, but anyone who’s dealt with DC in the least bit knows that unless you have 2/3 majority, the minority party has just as much influence in getting things done. And, don’t read too much into this Phil, but South Dakota’s Republican Senator voted FOR the expanded funding, supporting Bill Frist, the Tennessee Republican who put it on the floor for a vote. Now, it’ll go to President Bush, who is ethically opposed to using HUMAN EMBRYONIC stem cells. That’s not a war on science, that’s a question of ethics that has not been resolved. However, in lieu of that ethical question not being resolved, he has allowed substantial funding into that area. So, don’t give me the "ban" crap. The evidence isn’t there.
If Phil were to search Congress using Thomas.loc.gov for "Intelligent+Design", he’d find the following results:
1000 Bills from the 109th Congress ranked by relevance on "intelligent+design ".
0 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.
0 bills containing all your search words near each other in any order.
30 bills containing all your search words but not near each other.
970 bills containing one or more of your search words.
That’s right, the South Dakota GOP has such a profound impact on "the Republican Congress" that not one single mention is made of "intelligent design" or "creationism". And, although Phil is quick to mention South Dakota, his sources are even quicker to "forget" this flap in 2004:
According to Capital sources, GOP House Speaker Rod Jetton is coming under fire from some Christian conservatives for "anti-creationism" legislation he passed in 2004.
State House observers may recall that Jetton (along with co-defendant sponsor Jason Crowell) passed legislation that year making the Hypsibema missouriensis the "official dinosaur of
Missouri". Hypsibema missouriense was a "duck billed" dinosaur that lived during the Late Cretaceous Period (89 to 65 million years ago). A herbivore, it had evolved specialized teeth to handle the tough, fibrous vegetation of the time.
As an Official State Symbol, pictures of the "duck billed" dinosaur, along with a description of its "evolved" teeth, are now being sent to over 100,000 Missouri school children every year. Some Christians conservatives view Jetton’s legislation as a major setback in their campaign to ban the teaching of evolution in
Missouri classrooms. With Jetton’s clout weakened by scandal, watch for religious conservatives in the Missouri House to attempt to repeal Jetton’s "anti-creationism" handiwork.
<>
I’ll make that story a little clearer for those who don’t want to read it all, a REPUBLICAN endorsed a DINOSAUR thereby endorsing EVOLUTION so the Christians want him out.
So Phil, I’ll call it what it is. You’re partisan as hell. Don’t feel too bad about it though, academia has hated Republicans for a long time. They justify it through citing vast research into only one aspect of an issue. In this case, the South Dakota GOP is the only thing that’s important. All the evidence contrary to what the South Dakota GOP did is totally irrelevant. The fact that Republicans are coming under fire for supporting creationism AND opposing creationism should tell people like Phil something’s amiss. But, I bet my bottom dollar it won’t. Any takes?
As I pointed out several times before here, it’s not a party issue Phil’s looking at. It’s a religious thereby ethical issue. Sticking it to the Republican Party will NOT resolve the issues Phil complains about. I’m sure he’d complain a little less if it were Democrats doing this, but that just makes the issues harder to address. So, to answer his assertion, I am Republican, I’m not a resident of South Dakota, and therefore I’m not appalled, disgusted, amazed, stunned, in awe, stupefied, or even aghast at what the people of South Dakota think about creationism. They set their standards, my state sets its own. I for one don’t see that creationism and evolution necessarily conflict. No one’s really explained that one to me. I’ve also not been convinced "the big bang" is the ultimate beginning of time, what was there before the bang? So, I’m open to all arguments. But, not at the expense of shutting any angles out at this time. So, until the ultimate answer of "where did we come from" is PROVEN, I don’t think anyone really has the right to shut the other side up.
Stick to science Phil. Leave the partisan stuff to Kos and the like. If you’re going to turn Bad Astronomy into a political forum, at least approach it as you would any scientific theory. Look at both sides of the issue and then compare the results. Coming to the conclusion and then cherry-picking data to support the conclusion isn’t terribly scientific now is it? It’s fair to challenge people on the theory of creationism. It’s not fair to bias one select group and give others a free pass to continue espousing that theory you disagree with. Several Democrats in the House voted against stem cell research yesterday, they are as culpable in the "war on science" as any Republican. How many people are singling them out? They get a free pass. Where’s the constant rantings against "the Democrat War on science"? That’s exactly what I’m talking about. And yeah, it’s purely partisan when you do that. You said you would call Democrats to task for doing similar stupid things. IMO, at this point in time, stem cell funding is profoundly more critical to the survival of mankind than arguing over the exact beginning of time that no one in our lifetime will ever be able to prove one way or the other or even come remotely close. So, call those Democrats as well as those Republicans who opposed it to task EQUALLY. Not doing so is exactly what you’re claiming you’re not doing, practicing partisan politics.
Comments
Comments:
Leave a Reply
