It's a widespread view, but true in only a narrow sense. People who say they are against teaching the theory of evolution are very likely to be Christian fundamentalists. But people who are against taking seriously the implications of evolution, strongly enough to want to attack those who disagree, including those who teach those implications, are quite likely to be on the left.There is much to be said for this. It is an oversimplification, of course, and both Amagi and Friedman acknowledge that within the context of their own essays, even giving counterexamples. But it is certainly an irony worth attending to.
Friedman's site is called Ideas, and that's what it is. I am barely started and am already finding much to chew on. Don't be intimidated by that. Most of the writings are quite accessible, and even fun. Think of them as brain vacations, where you travel to an unfamiliar place but only do the fun stuff.
2 comments:
The implications of evolution destroy the theories of the Blank Slate and the Noble Savage, so of course the left doesn't want them discussed. Their whole world view falls apart if you start seriously looking at those implications, especially if you combine them with modern neurobiology. You can't perfect humans and society, à la Lysenko, if you have to deal with biological realities.
Game Change, the recent book on the 2008 campaign, had an interesting bit about Sarah Palin.
McCain's people asked her: do you believe in evolution?
Sarah's reply: My father was a science teacher. I believe in evolution. I just believe that God plays a part in evolution.
Which reminds me of reading recently that the left projected all their nightmares onto Sarah Palin.
Post a Comment