Re: [Phys-l] frizzi

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

This is precisely why as scientists we need to speak up about the candidates
who are in favor of teaching religious positions about science in schools,
and who use spurious evidence about global warming.  Economics is beyond
this list, but physicists have dabbled in it by showing how the stock market
behaves like a chaotic system rather than as a perfect mirror of economic
growth.  Besides which I suspect that "fixing" the economy is neither simple
nor entirely in our hands.  After all it wasn't called "the dismal science"
for nothing.  Economics has the big problem that real experiments are
impossible and when attempted are always muddied by political
considerations.  Everyone has a dyed in wool economic paradigm, so it is
very difficult to discuss it rationally.  Economics depends on a variety of
very irrational things not the least of which is how people and institutions
behave and what they believe.  Even Harry Seldon's mathematical model for
human behavior broke down when unforseen individual behavior dominated.  It
is not worth getting bent out of shape because someone holds an opposing
economic view!

My question at this point is how many prominent conservatives have actually
denounced the anti-science attitudes of other conservatives.  Ok, there is
one minor contender in the presidential field who did this.  This is an
issue that should be separate from other issues such as economics, but the
current bundling together of disparate issues has prevented such plain
speech.

As to the influence of the president, I have friends in the EPA who has
detailed how it operates.  In recent years many of the Republican appointees
have acted to prevent the EPA from properly pursuing its mission.  As a
result outrageous polluters have been allowed to get away with their
actions.  The supervisors have told the people under them to cease and
desist.  This was a small effect for previous administrations, but the last
Bush administration clamped down hard.  An agency which has conflicting stop
and go directions can not be optimally effective, and there will be an
amount of wasted money.

The courts have affirmed that religious dogma can not be taught in public
schools, and it seems to be a very firm 7-2 decision.  But such things can
be overturned, and have been in the past.  But such decisions are only made
when a prominent case comes to the court.  The recent LA attempt to inject
"alternate theories" into science was exposed as a blatant attempt to inject
religious dogma into science.  But the smaller cases of an individual
teacher ignoring evolution, or injecting creationism never make it to the
court.  That is where the president and governors set the tone.  Some
outrageous cases such as distributing bibles inside public schools came to
head with the suit against the Sante Fe, TX schools, but usually the local
schools are not sued.  So when Perry held a prayer meeting inside a public
school he actually expressed defiance of the Supreme Court, and got away
with it.  He is just the tip of the melting iceberg, but this sort of thing
creates a very bad precedent and encourages others.

So all scientists especially conservatives need to stand up and speak out
against this sort of thing.  They need to question the credentials of all
candidates with regards to science.  For example did they study science in
an institution that taught creation science instead of standard biology?
Actually many religious schools do teach standard biology.  One prominent
conservative Baptist college in Houston professes anti-evolution ideas, but
the biology department teaches standard biology.  All Catholic schools teach
standard biology, and all mainline Protestant schools do likewise.  But
often the fundamentalist HSs teach creationism, and the most popular home
school books do likewise.  As to economic credentials, might a D in
economics qualify as a negative?

Here is a statement by TX education agency: "Our science standards require
students to analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations, so it
is likely that other theories, such as creationism, would be discussed in
class".  Essentially they are saying that individual teachers would be
trying to sow doubt about evolution.  And Perry said: "It's a theory that's
out there and it's got some gaps in it. In Texas, we teach creationism and
evolution because I feel you're smart enough to figure out which one is
right."  But from other statements we know which one he supports, and which
one he wants the students to think is right.  Actually this was a mild
statement because it was made in NH which has a lot of swing voters.  But
Perry is only one among many prominent conservative politicians who hold the
same views.  Actually this is not a problem in Houston, Austin, or most big
TX cities because the schools do teach standard science there.  It is mainly
a problem in smaller school districts scattered throughout the state.  Perry
had direct responsibility for this by his appointments.  Of course Perry's
science views might be questioned just because other candidates are ganging
up on him, but probably only by a few bold minor candidates.

It is only in the US among developed nations that conservatism has become
strongly identified with anti-science attitudes, and this is a recent
phenomenon.  Democratic presidents can not inspire pro-science attitudes
because the attitudes are labeled "liberal".  It takes conservatives to
inspire other conservatives to have pro-science attitudes.  I don't think
this should be a liberal/conservative issue as I doubt anyone on this list
is an evolution doubter, but you never know.  The US public debate over
evolution is a total embarrasment and makes us seem ridiculous to the rest
of the developed world.  Can anyone name a developed country where
creationism might be allowed in the public schools other than the US?

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> Bot true.  A country like ours (or Britain) is run by the 
> civil service 
> which is run, within limits, by the secretaries - the spolitical 
> appointees.  A president can do much to demoralize the civil 
> service - 
> and, in fact, the military.