Second Thoughts

It seems that the Kansas Board of Education has decided to rewrite the definition of science in service of the opportunity to teach Intelligent Design. The brazen disregard of longstanding tradition is truly frightening, and betrays the very idea of conservatism. One unfavorable definition of conservatism dictates that conservatives are reactionary, are afraid of progress, are suspicious of the future. They want to remain in the past, to hold true to tradition. But what more verifiable tradition do we have than science? Priorities have gotten so out of balance that they are willing to rewrite some traditions (science) to uphold others (religion or religious explanations of the world). This is not conservatism, not really.

One could also call conservatism (more favorably) an allegiance to facts. William F. Buckley, the famous conservative who founded National Review, calls conservatism “the acknowledgment of realities.” One could stretch that to include the aim of science, to rely on verifiable ideas and a suspicion of too much ideology. In an excellent New Yorker article about Peter Viereck and the origins of modern conservatism (which, back then, was something that I could relate to), Buckley was asked about today’s Bush conservatives and conservatism’s current course. “I’m not happy about it. It’s probably true that in [support for the war in Iraq] you have a rediscovery of idealism. It’s not, in my judgment, conservatism. Because conservatism is, to a considerable extent, the acknowledgment of realities. And this is surreal.”

The war in Iraq and the ideal of spreading democracy is separate from the skewed moral mission of Republicans on social issues, but the strangely unbalanced emphasis on certain aspects of traditional values along with a disregard for others is shared by both. In the New Yorker article, Viereck speaks about why he reacted so strongly against Mcarthyism and the resulting conservatism: “What causes the greatest crimes in history? The greatest bloodshed? The most murders? I would say two things: sincere love and a sincere devotion to liberty.” Viereck was referring to the utopian aims of communism, that if one focuses too strongly on an abstract idea, one will end up sacrificing others: this is a good rough outline of fundamentalism. It is faith carried too far, when its worst qualities are emphasized. It is the infusion of religion and politics, which is central to the situation in Kansas.

As the NYTimes article mentions, the conservative movement is the one trying to redefine something longstanding, when that’s what, usually, the left has tried to do. The roles have been strangely reversed.

This is interesting:

When pressed for a definition of what they do, many scientists eventually fall back on the notion of falsifiability propounded by the philosopher Karl Popper. A scientific statement, he said, is one that can be proved wrong, like "the sun always rises in the east" or "light in a vacuum travels 186,000 miles a second." By Popper's rules, a law of science can never be proved; it can only be used to make a prediction that can be tested, with the possibility of being proved wrong.

Intelligent Design can never be proved wrong, even as it claims to prove Evolution wrong (or at least inadequate). It points to a vacuum in our understanding and fills it with something that does the aim of Science no good. It’s actually a kind of laziness.

Having grown up in an Evangelical household, I have been involved with this issue for a long time, and read a few books which promoted Intelligent Design when I was young, including Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box. I even wrote a research paper in 8th grade on why Evolution was inadequate. But when I look back, the whole thing rings false: I wasn’t concerned with science when I was reading the books or writing the paper--I wasn’t looking at Darwin’s writings or current scientific defenses, except as they were mentioned and quickly refuted in the anti-evolution books. What I was really writing about was religion, in a roundabout way, and the answer to the questions of origin were already in mind. Ideology remained deeper and more important than curiosity and, eventually, facts. I wasn't a scientist, but I felt comfortable making sweeping and obviously controversial scientific claims. (From an Amazon review for the book: "What I like so very much about this book is that very complicated ideas are simplified to my level. So, if you're not a scientist, don't worry...I can still quote his nine year old material to refute what evolutionists say. --Sean Horton, "the bibliophile").

The philosopher Jean Mercier writes that “Fundamentalists read their own books and none other; they consider knowledge from other sources useless and dangerous since it creates only doubt and confusion. It is enough to surrender unconditionally to the letter of ‘The word of God’” But the Bible and other religious texts are slippery things, easily appropriated and interpreted to satisfy the reader--whether it is to reinforce one’s own beliefs, or to condemn others'. “Bible readers...search the Bible for themselves,” Harold Bloom writes. One can find the evidence for any system of belief or doubt in too many places to count.

“I can think of nothing more gallant, even though again and again we fail, than attempting to get at the facts; attempting to tell things as they really are. For at least reality, though never fully attained, can be defined. Reality is that which, when you don’t believe in it, doesn’t go away.” Viereck’s resolve is inspiring and infectious; he is speaking, I think, about a kind of marriage of idealism and science. A relationship in which the former is tempered by the latter, yet the idealism continues to inspire the quest. There is a push and pull, a carefully orchestrated and sacred balance, a restraint and a desire to leap. Progress happens when both are kept in check.