Posted on 10/20/2005 6:17:41 PM PDT by furball4paws
http://www.waronscience.com/excerpt.php?p=1
Chapter 1: The Threat IN THE SUMMER OF 2001, long before his reelection and even before he became a "wartime president," George W. Bush found himself in a political tight spot. He responded with a morsel of scientific misinformation so stunning, so certain to be exposed by enterprising journalists (as indeed it was), that one can only wonder what Bush and his handlers were thinking, or whether they were thinking at all. The issue was embryonic stem cell research, and Bush's nationally televised claim—that "more than sixty genetically diverse" embryonic stem cell lines existed at the time of his statement—counts as one of the most flagrant purely scientific deceptions ever perpetrated by a U.S. president on an unsuspecting public. Bush's assertion, made on August 9, 2001, came as the president sought to escape a political trap of his own making. Campaigning in 2000, Bush told the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that taxpayer money "should not underwrite research that involves the destruction of live human embryos." The statement threw a bone to Bush's pro-life followers, who view the ball of about one hundred fifty cells constituting a five-day-old embryo as deserving of the same moral and legal protections as fully developed human beings. Accordingly, these religious conservatives consider embryonic stem cell research—the study of excess embryos donated for research from in vitro fertilization clinics—ethically abhorrent. But some prominent Republicans, such as Utah senator Orrin Hatch, favored the research because of its scientific promise. As the issue came to a head in the summer of 2001, Bush publicly agonized over what to do. Finally, he opted for a supposed compromise: he would allow federal funding, but only for research on preexisting cell lines.
(Excerpt) Read more at waronscience.com ...
Your worst fears pingy.
I hope the left emotes itself to death.
The exerpt is from Mooney's book, but it is also part of the Seed article.
They aren't going to roll over. They must be squashed.
And if embryonic stem cells are so usefel why isn't it funded privately or funded much by the private sector? I would think if it was as valuable as the media is making it out to be then it showed be a goldmine for the private sector.
bump for later reading.....
I agree, generally, with you, but if you read the entire link you'll see that stem cells is just one thing and the Creationist/ID war on Evolution and the Dover trial also play a significant role.
|
PLEASE NOTE:
The exerpt is from Mooney's book which is exerpted at the posted link. The article in Seed is by the same author and contains the same stuff in a more abbreviated form. In addition, the Seed article emphasizes the Creationist/ID attacks on Evolution and the Dover trial.
It could be the political fire over embryonic stem cells or the superior utility of adult and cord blood stem cells. Either or both could be good business reasons to pursue the course that the private sector has elected.
Creationism lite?
(Please ping me when "intelligent design" includes some real science, or when the Discovery Institute makes a discovery.)
Incidentally, Michael Fumento has an article about the further value of adult stem cells.
They have. They discovered how to get money out of the pockets of yahoos.
I never thought I'd see the day that conservatives attack conservatives...with leftist political agitprop.
They have "discovered" the soft underbelly of science -- that government schools are run by elected school boards, which are often made up of scientific illiterates -- real estate salesmen, funeral directors, dentists' wives, etc. By flim-flamming such sorry material, they can get the "controversy" into the curriculum, thus plunging our children into the abyss of ignorance.
A section of Conservatives are in a full assault on Science, which by its nature is apolitical. The Left will bash us with this. We need to know what's going on.
Oh. You think the left believes in science, in rationality? Have you missed the past 50 years of academic discourse? Have you not noticed that Heidegger and Focault and Derrida and the rest of the heroes of the left are anti-rationalists?
No? You mean you've swallowed this idiotic nonsense?
They don't have to believe it to bash us with it politically.
Perhaps, I've never understood the evo/creation debate anyways (I suppose at this point I should say I am a creationist, just so everyone knows where I stand). It isn't as if a leftist is going to walk up to you and go "Oh an pro-evolution conservative! You're cool!" The left is going to bash conservatives regardless. They might even call you a creationist just because you ARE conservative (leftists and the truth don't get along very well)
I don't see how conservative in-fighting is going to make conservatives invulnerable to leftist attack.
It used to always be Bush's fault. Now, it's our fault.
The internecine war in the ranks of conservatives between scientists and creationists will, of course, remain off the radar of the MSM. Somehow we conservative scientists must either secede, cleanse the ranks or make it more than abundantly clear that conservativism does not abide with superstitious, supernatural nonsense.
Only read the first paragraph. As a scientist who has had the displeasure of dealing with journalists, I found plenty of laughs at the liberal journalists' self-exaultation but scarcely any truth to the matter.
We don't have to worry about you or me. But many Americans will see the Dover trial as an attack on Science and that is actually what happens on many Crevo threads. They won't like that. This "infighting" is an opening for the Left to score points with those who are "moderate" (yuch I hate that word). That could swing several elections and certainly would have swung the 2000 Presidential election.
Any appearance of irrationality gives you enemy a club to beat you with.
"The internecine war in the ranks of conservatives between scientists and creationists will, of course, remain off the radar of the MSM"
We have a trial now with national attention and screeds like this. Is this "off the radar of the MSN"?
The screed can be laughable, but for politics it just has to look good. No truth is necessary.
The internecine war within conservatives' ranks is. Us conservatives are all being painted by the same brush, to wit: "a grand clash between modern American science and modern American conservatism may well have been inevitable." (from the article).
I was actually going to type, "Thank God we have you here to tell us how to think." Then the irony of that struck me.
You do understand that Americans have believed in God for many generations, right? Why are we only now in danger of plunging into the abyss? Are you afraid of what the Europeans might think of us?
I grew up believing in God, and I have done okay, as have millions... hundreds of millions... of your fellow countrymen. I believe this is and always has been about more than "science."
I agree with you on "moderates" I don't know that they really exist outside of the media agitation machine come election time. It seems to me there are three classes of voter republican, democrat, and disinterested.
Also, is anyone really following the Dover trial that closely? (I confess that I haven't) will anyone care come 2008? Or even next year?
Is creationism v. evolution that hot of a political topic outside of a political forum such as this?
BTW, I am not stringing you along to drop anything on you :) If I do, you have the right to yell at me until your keyboard breaks. I just haven't been too involved in this on FR and I am curious about the broader picture.
I have not heard anyone discuss this trial outside the pro-evolution mob on free republic. Most people don't get this distressed over the faith of others. Really!
Do you think the MSN will discover this schism? Could it split off enough to, say, the Libertarian Party, to significantly hurt conservatives. Please don't fool youself. They know. They may not know yet how to use it, but they know.
This has been going on for some time. Not surprisingly, many conservatives will support a war on science.
And lets be completely fair: Presidents are notorious for flagrantly perpetrating purely scientific deceptions! And this one is a doozie! ;-)
It bears repeating.
Several reviewers have criticized Mooney for exactly that. They point out that there's also a Leftist War on Science, albeith a smaller one so far.
I got him to admit it in the Q&A session.
They'll do their best to ignore it.
I truly think it's a big-time Achille's heel for us becuase: 1. of the MSM's penchant to misrepresent conservatives and, 2. we conservatives DO have a problem in our ranks.
I can't see the Libertarian party as a savior for this predictament, either.
We need a prominent movement such as, for an example, "ConSci" Conservatives for Science.
I ask you to reconsider your view that it is not big. Creationists/ID people are hanging on the trial. If the School Board wins they will trumpet it and push the same into every School System they can find. BTW the attack isn't just on Evolution, although it gets the brunt of the attack. It also concerns almost every field of science, since the literal reading of Genesis conflicts with almost every area of science. It also opens the door for an American Theocracy. Something we should all fear.
Scientist are generally a very quiet lot, politically. They prefer to chase their pet ideas in a lab. But this assault could well bring them out into public focus and then people will then see rational, experimental science vs. faith. Will this affect a "swing" voter? I think it will.
Did you miss that part? Or is it perhaps that you believe that the left is synonymous with scientific rationality? That must be, since I haven't a clue as to what else you must be getting at.
Of course there is especially with the Greenies. But the MSN won't blow that horn. How many people do you think are still pushed around by the MSN?
The Crazy Years are upon us.
Can Nehemiah Scudder be far behind?
[To All: In Robert A. Heinlein's early writing, Scudder was a religious demagogue whose followers overthrew the United States government and instituted a theocracy; if you don't know the Crazy Years, you should look 'em up.]
Neither can I. The Libertarians are pretty pitiful right now.
Scientific Conservatives
SciCons?
Yikes! I'd forgotten about that. Prescient?
Yeah, that's the ticket!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.