jumping to conclusions

Over at The Atlantic, Jim Manzi posts..

Patrick Appel points to a very interesting debate about Intelligent Design at The Corner. (To put my cards on the table, I believe ID to be pseudo-science.)

The debate about evolution is a great example of the kind of sucker play that often ensnares conservatives. Frequently, conservatives are confronted with the assertion that scientific finding X implies political or moral conclusion Y with which they vehemently disagree. Obvious examples include (X = the Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary biology, Y = atheism) and (X = increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 will lead to some increase in global temperatures, Y = we must implement a global regulatory and tax system to radically reduce carbon emissions). Those conservatives with access to the biggest megaphones have recently developed the habit of responding to this by challenging the scientific finding X. The same sorry spectacle of cranks, gibberish and the resulting alienation of scientists and those who respect the practical benefits of science (i.e., pretty much the whole population of the modern world) then ensues.

In general, it would be far wiser to challenge the assertion that X implies Y. Scientific findings almost never entail specific moral or political conclusions because the scope of application of science is rarely sufficient. In fact, for the two examples that I provided, I have tried to show in detail that X does not come close to implying Y.

Conservatism has often been called (by intellectuals) the “stupid party”. But I think it is more precise to say that healthy conservatism from Burke onwards has been the party of “facts trump theories”. Naturally, if you are in the business of spinning theories – that is, if you are an intellectual – this can be pretty frustrating, and it will often be to your advantage to characterize this as “stupid”. But this is what makes contemporary conservative ideology that refuses to engage seriously with the scientific enterprise so damaging: it sacrifices the key conservative virtue of empiricism.

I wholly agree. Accepting evolution implies nothing but that we likely evolved from less-developed beings to what we are today. Examples of evolution and adaptation in many forms are omnipresent. To ignore the evidence just to blindly cling to theism is ridiculous. You can be a theist and believe in the likelihood of evolutionary theory just as well, you’ll just have to think rationally as you determine the difference between literal and figurative teachings in your various religious texts.

As for global warming, I also agree that accepting a warming globe does not require one to be for cap-and-trade / carbon-credit systems. Are we making a direct impact on the Earth’s climate? Sure. Should that mean that we halt our technological advances and regress to living in caves? Of course not. Efforts for cleaner energy should certainly be made, but not at the expense of the amount or reliability of that energy. While hydroelectric and wind power make a lot of sense, those solutions are not practical everywhere. Burning coal is technologically retarded and we definitely need to move away from it as a major source of power. All signs point to nuclear power as being the answer — let’s move forward with that.