Really, if you haven't yet checked out John Pieret's "Thoughts in a Haystack", you're missing out.
The first article which grabbed my attention (which is stretched in a lot of directions just now) was this bit:
Poor Casey Luskin. Here he expends all the time and effort to try to paint the opposition to Iowa's version of the Discovery Institute's "academic freedom" legislation as unfairly characterizing the bill as attempting to inject religion into public classrooms and along comes one of his "allies" and blows his cover:
Norman Pawlewski, representing the Christian Alliance and one of two state lobbyists registered in favor of HF 183, said, "Why shouldn't teachers and students be able to decide among all the science-related information? God created science, after all."
Can't you just hear Luskin screaming - again - "IX-NAY ON THE OD-GAY!!!!111!!" Nothing like having the rank and file - you know, the folks who'll really work to implement those destructive, deceptively-named "academic freedom" bills in their local science classrooms - give away the game.
The next piquant offering was a great summary of a lengthy interview of the Kansas-born-and-raised philanthropist David H. Koch. Yes, that Koch, the NOVA supporter. Although I don't agree with all of Koch's politics, he did an admirable job of frustrating a second-rate reporter who seemed to be more determined to get Koch to dish out some dirt on evolution than in giving us a complete or coherent picture of a strong science supporter:
Pieret: As far as her interviewing "skills," she can't seem to ask a question without appending to it a long personal (and pointless) anecdote or an extended diatribe about her Secretariat-like hobbyhorse. Many of her questions are longer than any of the answers that Koch gave and you can practically hear the wheels turning in his head going "how did I wind up in a room with this woman?" Koch sidestepped most of her claims of the impending end-of-evolution-as-we-know-it by saying that he was unaware of her "examples" or unqualified to assess the science or by making reassuring but noncommittal noises about how the public is served by knowing more about the subject. Asked if "we are now witnessing a sea change in evolutionary thinking?" he rather sensibly answered:
Koch: No. I don't think it's a sea change. The sea change occurred back when Darwin published his evolutionary theories, backed up by massive, overwhelming evidence. What's happened since is that there's been a rather steady progressive acceptance of the concepts of evolution in the general public. It's amazing to me that in America a large faction of the population still doesn't believe in it.
Even better . . . as Jeremy noted to me earlier,
Mazur: Do you have any interest in supporting an evolution conference in America along the lines of what the Vatican or the Austrians have done? Also, do you have any interest in creating a foundation specifically for the investigation of these other mechanisms of evolution?
Koch: . . . I think my talents and fortune could be enormously better spent on developing cures for diseases like cancer. For me to worry about these highly theoretical arguments rather than try to cure these horrible diseases? Cancer kills half a million people a year. That's a far better use for my money than this kind of academic theoretical debate.
Koch: . . . I think my talents and fortune could be enormously better spent on developing cures for diseases like cancer. For me to worry about these highly theoretical arguments rather than try to cure these horrible diseases? Cancer kills half a million people a year. That's a far better use for my money than this kind of academic theoretical debate.
Or as my kids *say - PWND! (*used with the understanding that as soon as I use the term, it becomes passé and not fit for teenage consumption.)
Go visit "Thoughts in a Haystack" when you get a chance.
posted by Cheryl Shepherd-Adams
