August 5, 2005

LONELY PARROT PERCH:

Design for Confusion (PAUL KRUGMAN, 8/05/05, NY Times)

[W]hat if creationists do to evolutionary theory what corporate interests did to global warming: create a widespread impression that the scientific consensus has shaky foundations?

Creationists failed when they pretended to be engaged in science, not religious indoctrination: "creation science" was too crude to fool anyone. But intelligent design, which spreads doubt about evolution without being too overtly religious, may succeed where creation science failed.

The important thing to remember is that like supply-side economics or global-warming skepticism, intelligent design doesn't have to attract significant support from actual researchers to be effective. All it has to do is create confusion, to make it seem as if there really is a controversy about the validity of evolutionary theory. That, together with the political muscle of the religious right, may be enough to start a process that ends with banishing Darwin from the classroom.


It's hardly surprising that Mr. Krugman has no idea what Americans believe about evolution, but, in point of fact, the vast majority already rejects the shaky foundations and the target here is only the miniscule 13% of the population that isn't already Creationist. Meanwhile, the public conversion of even folks like Anthony Flew suggests that Mr. Krugman is right and it may not be hard to sew confusion in their midst if you give them an option short of the Creator.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 5, 2005 5:43 PM
Comments

Given that he writes for the NYT I can understand his profound attachment to primordial ooze, hot air, and looting, and bemoan their eclipse.

Posted by: Luciferous at August 5, 2005 6:52 PM

Heck, about 87% of Americans say they believe in god, although the proportion who act as if they do is less, around 0.1% in my experience.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 5, 2005 7:13 PM

I've been fortunate enough never to meet anyone who acted like Darwinism was true--I've read about Nazi Germany though.

Posted by: oj at August 5, 2005 9:06 PM

Apparently Mr. Krugman is unaware, (as he is about almost everything), that there is no scientific consensus about global warming: Whether it exists, or if so, if humans are causing it.

As Dylan Thomas so eloquently wrote:
Rage, rage against the dying of the light/Do not go gentle into Paul Krugman's nutty and pessimistic night.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at August 6, 2005 3:58 AM

why would anyone read anything by krugman, it's irrational to expect anything worthwhile from him.

Posted by: cjm at August 6, 2005 9:54 AM

Michael: Or even, if it is happening and is caused by man, whether it would be a net loss or gain.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 6, 2005 11:17 AM

"the miniscule 13% of the population that isn't already Creationist"

I see the "Creationists" now include those who responded "don't know/undecided" and "believe that man descended over millions of years from lower forms of life with God guiding".

cre·a·tion·ism, n.

Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

Creationists according to the commonly understood definition and according to the poll Orrin cites amount to 45%; the rest is wishful thinking and number fudging on Orrin's part.

Posted by: creeper at August 8, 2005 12:58 AM

It would be more precise to say that around 87% have never had any coherent thoughts on the matter and could not explain what they think they think if asked and would not think the same things two days running.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 9, 2005 2:42 AM

Harry:

Bingo! It's just a Gnostic religioon and you're one of the Chosen. Congrats!

Posted by: oj at August 9, 2005 8:49 AM
« SAME PLAN, NEW WRAPPER: | Main | HAS HE NO SENSE OF HONOR: »