Matthews gets into evolution and the GOP with Mike Pence.

Okay--I saw this exchange linked at Friendly Atheist & Pharyngula, so, I've checked it out:



Wow, what got into Matthews, there, huh? I like when he gets into a topic and really engages--I think that's when he's at his best as an interviewer. But the topic of what I promised I'd call "evolution-denial", just like what we'd call "climate-change denial", are often linked to conservatism in general and to the Republican Party in particular, and I think that is in many ways detrimental to the party, because, well:

Facts.

When Rep. Pence points out that he'd be in favor of students being taught "all the facts" on the subject, the emphasis on "all" has to do with the "teaching the controversy". The idea that the student will then "decide" doesn't necessarily jibe with a study of the facts, so much as adopting a certain interpretation which many have concluded involves looking at some facts, while excluding or distorting others.

The same excluding/distorting factor is apparent in the climate change debate as well, with, for example, George Will citing a study from the '70's(?--Best science?) and actually distorting what it said, and no less a personage than Newt Gingrich actually pimping distorted research from an MIT professor (albeit this time on costs, not the actual science) on cap-and-trade. The term "clean coal" is pushed by the right as if mountain-top removal wasn't an environmental disaster and as if all particulates involved in coal-firing were really possibly scrubbed. (Do not, actually, get me started on uranium-mining and spent-core disposal in the nuke argument. When I run out of my facts on this one, I run out of my patience, too.)

The stem cell debate is another issue where the right can be hammered--yes, there is a limited opposition by some right-to-life activists that are in opposition to use of embryonic stem cell research (and, to me, the issue of "life" in potentia of an embryo that will not be implanted but will otherwise be disposed of is....well, theological? Philosophical?) There may well be other, recently-developed methods for obtaining lines for research. The issue is the prejudice against a particular method, and whether the argument behind it is factual, or emotional.

What I think Matthews was seizing on is that a lot of people who speak for the, say, evolution-denial or climate-change-denial position, actually are aware of the science. They are actually educated, but play down the facts for some political reason, such as, they want the, let's call it, "information-resistant" vote. But better policies and cleaner politics can only result from confronting these things we call....facts.

So, there's my poli-blogging take on it.