"...if they are at war against science in general, then it would be "The Discovery Institute's war on science", not "the Republican war on science".
In order to make a claim one need not include all members in a set. For instance, one could state that women fought for the right to vote even though not all women did. If the Discovery Institute and many other similar organizations antagonistic toward Evolution (which DOES necessitate a denial of science because science has a methodology which has validated evolution) were politically egalitarian rather than preponderantly or Absolutely Christian Republicans, I might have some sympathy for nit picking and sophistry with words--but I do not wish to obscure the clear sense of truth by confusing what is real with the communication of what is real. Conveying understanding requires a willing and sincere receiver--without which all attempts to convey an understanding or a fact will fail.
Leading Christian Republicans have argued for a Christian Theocracy. Examples are Palin and Huckabee. On the basis of their informed followers alone one can conclude certain things. Republicans who favour a Christian Theocracy cannot possibly be neutral to science as science contradicts ALL the essential premises of Christianity. Again...the fact that not ALL Republicans necessarily oppose the Scientific explanation of the Nature of Things does not invalidate the notion of a "Republican War on Science". Personally, I could characterise a general disrespect and disagreement with science as a "war" but again I do not wish to argue points on word games or scouring the internet for definitions. I think the appropriateness of stating disrespect or disagreement as "war" is quite flexible depending on circumstance and tone, etc. I am not at "war" with Christianity or with superstition in general but if one on SI were to genuinely feel for the truth of the case I would understand his notion in context.
Personally, I think any supernaturalism which denies the validity of scientific findings in order to maintain a capricious belief with no evidentiary basis is at the least a disrespect for Science. Note that I am not suggesting that people cannot fully support Science while still holding supernatural beliefs. This is possible and for some it may be practical But let me make the key point CLEAR. Science is Science. Metaphysics and philosophy and faith based beliefs are NOT. These things address ideas outside the province of Science. Evolution is a lie or the earth is 6000 years old or dinosaurs and people thrived together is an attack on the integrity of Science. The earth was created by an invisible spirit is not. Call it a war, call it a disrespect--I don't care. If you find a large number of any one group espousing such a disrespect, feel free to make a valid point about them. Nobody is saying ALL women fought for the right to vote or ALL Americans are patriotic or ALL Republicans oppose the Environmental Protection Agency--but where there is evidence that large groups of people have formed associations and have high profile voices espousing certain positions then one may legitimately state how they think and feel about that. There was a reason why waronscience.com was written (and it is a belief shared and prevalent throughout the internet) and to dismiss it as mere partisanship without examining it conscientiously, simply reveals a personal partisanship and an unwillingness to make an opinion more informed through the attempt of a qualified researcher's earnest efforts to prove or demonstrate a claim.
Again, your response may be to fiddle with the word 'war' so as to narrow the definition to a point where you are comfortable in this particular usage. And you will say it is not "really" a war. My response is I have made my response. Feel free to misunderstand it.
So I am done with that part of your argument. There are myriad ways to define "war" in myriad contexts, and fiddling with the definition simply serves to obscure what I (at least) am discussing, which is a significant attempt by a significant set of a recognised group to invalidate evolution (and often other equally valid scientific beliefs) and necessarily ( known or unknown to them) the methodological principles that validated evolution in the first and continuing place. |
