Kozlowski: Separate the thought from the thinker

Although Google might be the dominant search engine, there is still room for a yahoo in… Although Google might be the dominant search engine, there is still room for a yahoo in politics. Yahoos, not the company but the people, infect the body politic, whether it is those outliers on the Left who believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy to send everybody in the country to Guantanamo Bay, or some of those on the Right who insist that teaching evolution is part of a liberal conspiracy to destroy religion.

Trying to be a reasonable person in an atmosphere of unreasonability is a difficult task at best. One is often ostracized for making some of the same arguments made by those portrayed as wild-eyed extremists, even if you make these arguments thoughtfully. For example, when arguing against gun control or the health care bill, I have had to explain why I am not a crazy-eyed, gun-toting crypto-Nazi paid by health care companies to terrorize members of Congress.

Certain arguments are automatically seen as less credible simply because extremists use them as talking points. Never mind that, say, columnist George Will makes the same argument more reasonably. This is the logical fallacy of the ad hominem attack — just because somebody might have extreme ideas doesn’t mean that they aren’t occasionally right. Furthermore, the person talking to you should not immediately be dismissed as a nutcase because they use a nutcase’s talking point.

Unfortunately, the syllogism “Point A is an argument made by nuts. Therefore, everybody who says A is a nut” carries a lot of weight. This is problematic because it ends debate, and because some arguments have merit, regardless of who makes them.

Take, for example, the anti-evolution crowd. I find them annoying. They generally don’t understand what the theory of evolution says, or what a scientific theory even is. The general premise of intelligent design, as far as I can tell, is that the universe defies explanation, so we should just say God did it. Taking this to its logical conclusion, science in general is a big waste of time.

But as much as I disagree with such conclusions, intelligent design proponents have at least one good argument. Louisiana passed a bill in 2008 that calls for “critical thinking” about evolution in schools. The Louisiana Coalition for Science, a group of Louisiana residents concerned with science education, opposes the bill as a vehicle to promote creationism. The coalition is likely correct, and generally “critical thinking” is a euphemism for “criticism.” However, actual critical thinking in this case would be a good idea.

Why? Because critical thinking would mean having students research and understand the scientific underpinnings of the theory of evolution, and distinguishing science from faith. Critical thinking means understanding not only that evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by serious biologists, but why it is so accepted. A careful examination of evolution would teach a better grasp of the scientific method, a grasp of what constitutes “just a theory,” like evolution, universal gravitation, relativity or the atom. Actual critical thinking is an important skill for a scientist to develop. Evolution, if accepted, should be done so based on the overwhelming evidence in its favor, not on blind faith in science textbooks or biology teachers.

In Texas, other yahoos are scoring the occasional good point. The state school board recently revised textbook standards in a conservative fashion. A lot of hands have been wrung. It’s possible that Texas — with a large textbook market — could brainwash its children, and could affect other states as well. Never mind that Howard Zinn is read in some classrooms, but that’s another discussion.

At issue are biology standards, as well as alterations in history. Some of the changes might be a little off-base. However, there is one school of thought that is marginalized simply because it was suggested by the same board: greater coverage of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s behind Ronald Reagan, Phyllis Schlafly and evangelicals such as Pat Robertson.

I recall my textbook not spending a lot of time on these topics, focusing instead on things like Iran-Contra and the fall of the Berlin Wall. There is also a lot of time spent on New Left movements, anti-war protests and the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Not that these aren’t important, but the conservative resurgence is generally underrepresented.

Ultimately, love it or hate it, it is an important part of American history and has had real impacts, such as Bill Clinton sparring with a Republican Congress. The Republican party has also realigned, particularly in the South, where it once was a non-entity. We cannot dismiss this demand for greater emphasis simply because the same board that made the demand also demands a watered-down version of evolution.

While some might have radical views, we must remember to separate the arguments from the people who make them. We cannot dismiss arguments by merely dismissing people.

Write kozthought@gmail.com