604

I was born on this date, in England, back in 1809.

In some ways, the America of 1809, with its Deistic respect for reason and nature, presented a more accommodating environment for rational scientific thought than the America of 2006.

I fail to understand why Americans today feel threatened by the theory of evolution — in fact, by science itself.

When science appears to contradict your religious beliefs or even your political predispositions, you find the science suspect. For example, science warns you of the dangers of global warming. It is real and it is largely man-made, through fossil-fuel emissions. But your President Bush — who frankly seems to have been bypassed by the evolutionary process — claims that cutting back on the causes of global warming would harm the American economy. Therefore, he and others like him contend that global warming is nothing more than a possibility that needs more study. Meanwhile, blowhards and demagogues like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter ridicule the concept of global warming and anyone who espouses it.

Today, in reading the blog Bring It On! (blogs are a milestone in the evolution of human communication, BTW), I came across a curious term — scientific relativism. The term itself is an oxymoron, but incredibly, more and more Americans are coming to believe in it. As a commenter on the post remarked, "Morals are absolute but science is relative. How f*** up is that?" Indeed.

What has happened to you, America?

In today's edition of the MSM publication The Boston Globe, columnist Jeff Jacoby proudly champions the idea of scientific relativism. He pokes fun at research studies that sometimes contradict each other, as with the study showing that reducing fat in your diet may not reduce your chances of contracting cancer, heart disease, and other health problems.

After citing a few other contradictory research studies, Jacoby leaps to this sweeping conclusion:

Scientific pronouncements should be subjected to the same level of healthy skepticism as the promises of politicians or the claims of advertisers — or the views of newspaper columnists. With the best of intentions (and otherwise), scientists sometimes peddle claptrap.

How can Jacoby, with a straight face, compare scientific study with the claims of advertisers? But he must. It's essential for a belief in scientific relativism. And it's required for his larger point:

From cardiac health to climate change, it's worth keeping in mind that what the experts say today they may not be saying tomorrow. As that noted scientist Emily Litella used to put it in the old "Saturday Night Live" skits: Never mind. [emphasis mine]

Jacoby's column had never mentioned climate studies, greenhouse gases, or anything else having to do with global warming. But clearly, he is using his column to sully science in general, not just the particular studies he cites. And shamelessly, he is attempting to discredit the science behind global warming simply by dropping it into the same column as some isolated cases of contradictory research.

And even though Jacoby never mentions the theory of evolution directly, I suspect he is taking a cheap shot at that as well, especially since his column happens to appear on my birthday.