Printed from Kansas City IMC : http://kcindymedia.org/
IMC Independent Media Center
Media Centers

www.indymedia.org

africa
ambazonia
nigeria
south africa

canada
alberta
hamilton
maritimes
montreal
ontario
ottawa
quebec
thunder bay
vancouver
victoria
windsor

east asia
japan
taiwan

europe
andorra
athens
austria
barcelona
belgium
belgrade
bristol
cyprus
estrecho / madiaq
euskal herria
galiza
germany
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
lille
madrid
nantes
netherlands
nice
norway
paris
poland
portugal
prague
russia
sweden
switzerland
thessaloniki
united kingdom
west vlaanderen

latin america
argentina
bolivia
brasil
chiapas
chile
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
sonora
tijuana
uruguay

oceania
adelaide
aotearoa
brisbane
jakarta
melbourne
perth
sydney

south asia
india
mumbai

united states
arizona
arkansas
atlanta
austin
baltimore
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
danbury, ct
dc
hawaii
houston
idaho
ithaca
la
madison
maine
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
ny capital
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rocky mountain
rogue valley
san diego
san francisco bay area
santa cruz, ca
seattle
st louis
tallahassee-red hills
tennessee
urbana-champaign
utah
vermont
western mass

west asia
beirut
israel
palestine

[process]
discussion
fbi/legal updates
indymedia faq
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech
volunteer

[projects]
climate
print
radio
satellite tv
video

This site
made manifest by
dadaIMC software

Comment on this article | View comments | Email this Article
Commentary :: Kansas
Noam Chomsky: Evolution, Ecology and 'Malignant Design' Current rating: 0
15 Nov 2005
President George W. Bush favors teaching both evolution and "intelligent design" in schools, "so people can know what the debate is about."
November 14, 2005 by the Toronto Star (Canada)

Evolution, Ecology and 'Malignant Design'
by Noam Chomsky

President George W. Bush favors teaching both evolution and "intelligent design" in schools, "so people can know what the debate is about."

To proponents, intelligent design is the notion that the universe is too complex to have developed without a nudge from a higher power than evolution or natural selection.

To detractors, intelligent design is creationism — the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis — in a thin guise, or simply vacuous, about as interesting as "I don't understand" as has always been true in the sciences before understanding is reached.

Accordingly, there cannot be a "debate."

The teaching of evolution has long been difficult in the United States. Now, a national movement has emerged to promote the teaching of intelligent design in schools.

The issue has famously surfaced in a courtroom in Dover, Pa., where a school board is requiring students to hear a statement about intelligent design in a biology class — and parents mindful of the U.S. Constitution's church/state separation have sued the board.

In the interest of fairness, perhaps the president's speechwriters should take him seriously when they have him say that schools should be open-minded and teach all points of view.

So far, however, the curriculum has not encompassed one obvious point of view: malignant design. Unlike intelligent design, for which the evidence is zero, malignant design has tons of empirical evidence, much more than Darwinian evolution, by some criteria: the world's cruelty.

Be that as it may, the background of the current evolution/intelligent design controversy is the widespread rejection of science, a phenomenon with deep roots in American history that has been cynically exploited for narrow political gain during the last 25 years.

Intelligent design raises the question of whether it is intelligent to disregard scientific evidence about matters of supreme importance to the nation and the world — like global warming.

An old-fashioned conservative would believe in the value of Enlightenment ideals — rationality, critical analysis, freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry — and would try to adapt them to a modern society.

America's Founding Fathers, children of the Enlightenment, championed those ideals and took pains to create a constitution that espoused religious freedom yet separated church and state.

The United States, despite the occasional messianism of its leaders, isn't a theocracy.

In our time, Bush administration hostility to scientific inquiry puts the world at risk. Environmental catastrophe, whether you think the world has been developing only since Genesis or for eons, is far too serious to ignore.

In preparation for the G8 summit this past summer, the scientific academies of all eight member nations, joined by those of China, India and Brazil, called on the leaders of the rich countries to take urgent action to head off global warming.

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify prompt action," their statement said. "It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."

A few months earlier, at the 2005 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, leading U.S. climate researchers released "the most compelling evidence yet" that human activities are responsible for global warming, according to The Financial Times.

They predicted major climatic effects, including severe reductions in water supplies in regions that rely on rivers fed by melting snow and glaciers.

Other prominent researchers at the session reported evidence that the melting of Arctic and Greenland ice sheets is causing changes in the sea's salinity balance that threaten "to shut down the Ocean Conveyor Belt, which transfers heat from the tropics toward the polar regions through currents such as the Gulf Stream."

Like the statement of the National Academies for the G8 summit, "the most compelling evidence yet" received scant notice in the United States, despite the attention given in the same days to the implementation of the Kyoto protocols, with the most important government refusing to take part.

It is important to stress "government." The standard report that the United States stands almost alone in rejecting the Kyoto protocols is correct only if the phrase "United States" excludes its population, which strongly favors the Kyoto pact (73 per cent, according to a July poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes).

Perhaps only the word "malignant" could describe a failure to acknowledge, much less address, the all-too-scientific issue of climate change.

Thus, the "moral clarity" of the Bush administration extends to its cavalier attitude toward the fate of our grandchildren.

Author and activist Noam Chomsky is a linguistics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

© 2005 Toronto Star

###

This work is in the public domain

Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

Re: Noam Chomsky: Evolution, Ecology and 'Malignant Design'
Current rating: 0
26 Nov 2005
Listen to Noam, this Wednesday, November 30th at 9am on Alternative Radio on 90.1FM KKFI

Read 10 objects from the database. Queried the database 14 times. Served 1 files from the cache.