“Left” Versus “Right” Science
| May 7, 2009 | Posted by DonaldM under Intelligent Design |
MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews goes after Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) on Science.
PENCE: Do I believe in evolution? I embrace the view that God created the heavens and the earth, the seas and all that’s in them, and –
MATTHEWS: (interrupting) Right, but you believe in evolution from the beginning.
PENCE: The means, Chris, that He used to do that, I can’t say, but I do believe –
MATTHEWS: (interrupting) You can’t what?
PENCE: — in that fundamental truth.
MATTHEWS: Well — well did you take biology? (screaming) Did you take biology in school? Did you take science, which is all based on evolutionary belief and assumption?
PENCE: Well, I’ve always wanted to –
MATTHEWS: (screaming) If your party is to be credible on science, you’ve gotta accept science. Do you?
PENCE: Yeah, I want to –
MATTHEWS: Accept science?
embedded by Embedded Video
YouTube Direkt
This may come as a surprise to many of you, but Science, at least according to Chris Matthews, is a Democrat thing. Personally, I was unaware that there was a “deomcrat” way to do science and a “republican” way to do science. Someone might explain to me how that works. Is there a “left” scientific method and a “right” scientific method? Matthews certainly seems to think so! How ignorant and disingenous of him! (But, we’re talking about Chris Matthews here, the most misinformed commentator on the networks as far as I’m concerned)
Its worth noting how Matthews tries to build a straw man about YEC and then claim that there a “many” in the Republican party who hold that view and who are “anti-science”. Matthews demonstrates admirably the left’s derision of anyone who would dare question evolution, stem cell research, global warming and who knows what else. Matthews appears clueless about the real debates in science about all these things, and ignores completely any of the moral questions involved, pretending, I guess, that they don’t even exist!
I’ll grant that Mike Pence is not exactly the best spokesperson for Science and scientific issues, but trying to tie him to YEC and Fundamentalism only shows how shallow guys like Matthew and those on the left really are. Matthews did a great job of making a fool of himself…but then, he does that almost every night. That’s why MSNBC has the lowest rating of all the news networks.
Edited to add this:
Some additional thoughts on this from Cornelius G. Hunter from his Darwin’s God blogspot.
43 Responses to “Left” Versus “Right” Science
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Reg
As I said, I didn’t get it off a website, but from an e-mail from an associate of mine. The actual transcript of what was said is accurate and that’s all that matters. The parenthetical comments can be taken as one wishes, it changes nothing about the point of my OP and this thread. Its a dead horse already…put away your stick.
Mr DonaldM,
That could well be true, depending on what kind of work they doing in his lab. That doesn’t invalidate the example I gave above about herbicide design. Mr DATCG just asked for a single example, not an average across all drug design efforts in every company.
I think that in the area of human specific drug design, these concerns with macro-evolutionary events would come up mostly in HIV related fields, and other fields where disease vectors have resevoirs in other species and occasionally jump to humans. Another possible area in which it could be important is drugs with accidental or intentional impact on development, because it is in metazoan development that we can see the constraints caused by our distant ancestors, our inner fish.
I just watched this video and there was lots of shouting or screaming if you want to call it that. I have seen Matthews hundreds of times and this is typical of how he interviews a Republican or a conservative. It is rapid fire, talk over the other person, interrupt often. He has a template and wants to pin the person to it.
It is similar to the what the anti ID people do here. Except they do not want to talk about evolution because they know they will get their clocks cleaned.
The bias with which he interviews conservatives and especially republicans (since he is a democrat who use to work for the DNC)Chris Mathews is disgusting to me.
<blockquote<kairosfocus [12], there are only 24 hours in a day.
Hey! David Kellog. Lay off kairofocus. He’s one of the most interesting commenters here. If you think a particular post is too long, skim it and go on to the next one.
This interesting exchange between Pence and Mathews illustrates one important point: we do not want the media, nor politicians to do our bidding in questions of science, no matter what our philosophical perspective. Yet it seems that we all appeal to these lowest common denominators. Are we gluttons for punishment, or what?
Jerry, that is correct and that is for two main reasons- one he has an agenda pure and simple- and two because he is not intelligent enough to debate the subject fairly enough in real time. If Mathews even was intelligent enough to debate this issue on its merits he still would be in the troubling postions of being wrong from the start- that is he conflates poltics with sceince religion and philosophy so that he doesn’t have to address the truth- that they are seperate spheres of thought with seperate questions and issues that need to be indivudually adressed.
Mathews just simply wanted to try and up his ratings by creating a hot topic – one that will grab people’s attention back to his show by insulting them- this segment should have been called
“Republicans don’t believe in evolution because they are anti science”- which is a massive generality- and bigoted statement.
This is why I will never watch his show- it is completely unintelligible as it reflects the host and the BS.NBC channel as a whole.
The argument between ‘Macro-evolution’(ID accepts) and ‘Micro-evolution’(ID does not accept) is a red hearing, and I’m a little dissapointed in Mr/Miss Nakashima for using these terms; they are the creations of people who need to encapsulate their worlds within boundaries they can deal with. Mr/Miss Nakashima your posts are, to me high lights in generally mediocre thinking. Please don’t lower yourself to pandering to a vocabulary, that within the science community itself, does not exist. There is evolution only. If some people wish to dwell within walled worlds, let them, but please don’t stoop to using their invented language, and evolved meanings.
Rob.
Of course I mean Macro-evolution (ID does not accept), Micro Evolution, (ID does accept).
SORRY!
rvb8, ID can accept macro-evolution just not in the Darwinian (undirected chance) form.
^but now that i reread your post I think you are just projecting but dont actually hold that misunderstanding. Sorry.
Russ:
Thanks. (Cf my remarks to DK, here.)
GEM of TKI
Mr Rvb8,
Thank you for your kind words.
With respect to ‘macro-evolution’, it is a term that has appeared historically in the literature.
While I accept your comment that it’s micro-evolution all the way down, that perspective is not always the most helpful. Sure, we are just fish. Sure, we are just biofilms of bacteria. But speciation is a reality.
I’m quite interested in exactly those inputs to speciation that are not reducible to evolution. These might be things like co-evolution and the creation and destruction of niches in the physical environment.
I personally see the current state of “we accept micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution” and “evolution works, but only by active information” as a phase in a historical process. So I am happy to engage at the current moment with people using their current vocabulary, where it makes sense. I agree that if someone wnated to make an argument based on baraminology or some other invented stuffs, I would have to ask them to change their vocabulary before we could have a successful dialogue. In the case of macro-evolution, I don’t feel that’s necessary, modulo checking definitions.