I cannot let the chance slip: a judge in Pennsylvania slammed Intelligent Design. The New York Times editorial about it is here: Intelligent Design Derailed.

My point is simple: Intelligent Design is not science, it never was and never will be. For something to be scientific it has to be refutable through experiment or observation. Most people don’t realize that the purpose of scientific method is not to uncover ‘truths’ which is the domain of moral philosophy, it is to falsify hypotheses. If a hypothesis survives repeated attempts at falsification it can be accepted as a theory within the pantheon of scientific theories. [Thank you Sir Karl Popper for clarifying that!] It can always be falsified later on when better techniques or ideas come along. Thus our knowledge of gravity is theoretical and could be shown to be wrong at some time, so it cannot be referred to as a truth. Similarly evolution is a theory and could be shown to be incorrect in the future. Designating evolution as ‘only a theory, not a fact’, which the creationsists want to do, does not undermine or belittle it: the things we accept as ‘scientific thruths’ are things we accept as being correct until proven otherwise. All theories are not facts in this sense.

Since evolution theory has withstood all attempts to falsify it, it has to be accepted whether we like it or not; and whether or not it contradicts other explanations is irrelevant. It simply ‘is’! In contrast, Intelligent Design isn’t even a coherent hypothesis: it can’t be tested or falsified, it relies on what Daniel Dennett referes to as an intellectual ‘skyhook’ to lift it out of thin air, so it fails Popper’s definition of what science is. Ergo: don’t teach it science class.

What disturbs me the most about the whole evolution discussion is that the cultural conservatives are using it as a wedge to re-insert religious thinking into arenas where it no longer belongs because we have advanced our knowledge beyond the limits we had way back when our various religions were being developed. Instead of focusing on the more survivable pieces of Christianity [or Islam and Judaism for that matter] which would be [presumably] its moral value, conservatives look at things such as evolution as a threat to the entire fabric of their religion. It isn’t unless they make it so.

Even more disturbing is that a very significant portion of the American population cling to creationism and thus fuel the conservatives efforts to restrict science. This is a stunning failure of education, and goes to show how far we are from having an elightened electorate able to evaluate such discussions. Lest we all laugh and assume that the issue is not worth raising a fuss over: history should warn us. The Arab countries, now so far behind the rest of the world in learning, were once the intellectual epicenter of civilization. They lost their way when conservative Islam took root and eliminated any learning that wasn’t from the word of God. Four hundred years later they are paying the consequences of not fighting conservatism at its root. I’m glad the judge in Pennsylvania, a Bush appointee, knew better.

The war of words continues today as the New York Times publishes this editorial about Bush’s spying on Americans … The Fog of False Choices

Bush clearly broke the law — written in 1978. What else will he do as he encroaches on our freedoms? How do we stop him?

This is an extraordinary letter written by Senator Rockefeller when he was briefed about the wiretaps the New York Times has brought to light [brought to us courtsey of the Talking Points Memo website]: Senator Rockefeller’s Letter to Dick Cheney

I don’t know about you, but the word extraordinary feels inadequate. The Senator is clearly expressing frustration, annoyance and fear. His statement that he is keeping a copy of the letter is a damning criticism: he knew the wiretaps crossed the line. He knew that Bush and Cheney had redefined the limits of Presidential power in a huge and thoroughly undemocratic way.

No wonder that Bush called the publisher of the New York Times to the White House to try to prevent publication of the story. Those wiretaps are a massive excercise of unprecedented executive power, unheard of in American history. What Bush is saying is that he, as a ‘wartime president’ is totally above the law. He thinks he is beyond Congressional oversight or reach. In his own mind he is a dictator.

Watch this story!

The Republican leadership rammed through legislation opening up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling by attaching it to a military spending bill. This came after they failed to convince enough of their own moderates to support drilling as part of the budget bill that was also passed late last night. Drilling for oil in Alaska has become a major objective for the Republican right wing: the promise of oil from up there has them all in a lather. I suppose this means that they won’t have to do anything about conservation which is a better and more reliable source of energy independence and therefore national security, but which offends too many of the Republican Party’s business supporters. I can hear the oil industry reaching for their check books already! Every time drilling in the Arctic has been debated it has been prevented by a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans. So the hardliners had to slip it through the backdoor. So much for democracy!

He’s wrong of course, but I doubt that the majority od Americans care. The ‘secret’ wiretaps that the President so vigorously defended today are not essential to the defense of America. Bush always couchs his arguments in absolutes: as in ‘these wiretaps are saving lives and are therefore essential’. He is indulging in his favorite tactic which is to defend something that sounds so right, but is in fact not what he’s accused of doing. In this case he did something he didn’t even need to.

Here’s the story: Bush has allowed the NSA to execute a number of wiretaps against American citizens here in the U.S. without any legal authorization. Now he doesn’t need to do that because there is a frequently used and well tried legal way to get the same result, notably the secret court that exists specifically to facilitate such activity for domestic security agencies. So: if such a court exists, and operates secretly and successfully, as it has for years, why does Bush all of a sudden need to go around it? The only reason seems to be that he wants to extend the power of the executive branch of government so that he needs no legal sanction at all for anything he wants to do. That sounds dangerous, not because of Bush, but because it erodes the balance of power and civil rights that are central to the American way of doing things. We are supposed to be defending that way of life.

Bush constantly undermines the American way of life by harping on personal safety: he says he is defending American lives [as in ‘lives will; be lost if the Patriot Act is not passed’]. He uses scare tactics to force us into aquiescence, he uses wartime imagery to get legislation passed and to build support, and then pretends that in war no lives are lost. We cannot have it both ways: protecting the American way of life is worth losing lives over. Not just abroad, but here too. Imagine if the Founding Fathers had put personal safety ahead of their desired way of life. They understood that freedom is not a virtue for the timid. That’s the American heritage the President is entrusted with, but he which fails to understand. Instead he interprets his role simply as the defender of lives. He plays to America’s frailty intead of to its strength. So he feels justified in throwing overboard the very thing he’s supposed to be defending. Which is why he makes mistakes like this illegal wiretapping. He should be held accountable.

Addendum:

Bush attacked the New York Times for breaking this story about illegal wiretapping. Apparently the White House had kept the Times from publishing the report for about a year. Now he’s angry, and claims that publication will cost lives. He says that wiretaps keep ‘our enemies on the run’. That sounds more like the old Soviet Union than America. It’s also scary.