Paul Krugman Points Out Some Interesting Facts About the 'Intelligent Design' Movement

NYTimes columnist Paul Krugman, in his latest exposition, writes that the intelligent design movement is a direct result of the brainstorm of the founder of the neo-conservative movement. In 1978, Irving Kristol began urging corporations to make large donations to ideologically conservative individuals and groups who would speak out in favor of certain principles over others, whether they had the scientific research to support their claims or not. The neo-cons first attacks were against the established economic theories of the day, arguing in favor of supply-side economics--the idea that huge tax cuts could help to improve the economy in significant ways--even though there was no existing data to support the argument, and no plans to conduct any research into it.

Mr. Krugman argues that we can see the continuing effects of the neo-conservative agenda today in the attacks upon the established science of global warming, and most recently in the attacks upon evolutionary theory. Krugman writes, "Corporations followed [Kristol's] lead, pouring a steady stream of money into think tanks that created a sort of parallel intellectual universe, a world of 'scholars' whose careers are based on toeing an ideological line, rather than on doing research that stands up to scrutiny by their peers." It is this need to toe the ideological line that most distresses me about the current presidential administration. This administration creates its information where it sees fit to meet the ideological objectives that have been set forth. Just as Paul O'Neill, former Secretary of the Treasury in this administration, stated in his personal account of his time at Treasury, this administration does not look at the facts and develop policy. This administration develops policy and then finds 'facts' to support it. It is this political design that Irving Kristol mobilized, and it has now taken on a life of its own.

The neo-conservative movement identifies those issues that are not ideologically in line with it, finds 'scholars' who are willing to sell out in order to support the cause, does not offer true scientific research to support claims but instead offers good public relations machines, and attacks those established principles which they oppose in a concerted defamatory way. Krugman argues that even "the self-policing nature of science - scientific truth is determined by peer review, not public opinion - can be exploited by skilled purveyors of cultural resentment." When the neo-con organization opposes an established scientific position, they can throw the old argument at the public that 'those people', whoever they may be at the moment, think they are smarter than the average person; they argue in effect that 'those people' are elistist. As Krugman puts it, "Do virtually all biologists agree that Darwin was right? Well, that just shows that they're elitists who think they're smarter than the rest of us."

Krugman argues that the original attempt to discredit Darwinism, called 'creation science', was "too crude to fool anyone." However, the 'intelligent design' movement has essentially done only one thing: attempt to discredit evolution by making claims that 'evolution is only one theory' or that 'there are gaps in the theory of evolution." Even the attention given to the movement by the Catholic Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna uses ideology to support his claims, not scientific study. He, like the rest of the neo-con movement, attempts to argue that Darwinism is more ideology than science while ignoring science completely to support his own claims.

Here is the methodology employed by the neo-conservative movement. These are the tactics that we must become aware of and that we must make others aware of. Fight the good fight. The thing I have recently realized is that although I am a liberal thinker, I am not an ideological liberal. I am liberal because when I look at the real facts, I am required to come to grips with these facts. The best way to do that is from a liberal viewpoint, not a strict conservative ideology. In my mind, to be liberal means to be willing to make adjustments as necessary to find the best answers to the most difficult problems. To be conservative in these times means to listen to someone explain the party line and follow it blindly, without question and without consulting any facts.

If those are the options, I will choose being able to think for myself!