When science and politics
the results aren't often pretty. Examples abound today.
- Dubya recently allowed as how he thought, with respect to evolution versus intelligent design, that "both sides ought to be properly taught." (But you might want to read the relevant part of the transcript instead of the various news stories.) Instapundit called this "pathetic"; he, of course, has many links to others discussing the matter, including this more thoughtful response. I also like David Klinghoffer's thoughtful article on Intelligent Design at NRO.
- Michael Fumento pooh-poohs the hoopla over embryonic stem cells; he alleges that adult stem cells work better, and don't involve "ripping apart embryos."
- At Cato, an old but timely article by Patrick Michaels takes on the common doom-n-gloom wisdom that global warming is causing more and fiercer hurricanes.
- And at the American Spectator, George Neumayr says that Democrats' attitude toward science is pretty much governed by whether their policies are supported or not. (In this, cynical me says, they share a characteristic with many Republicans.) Case in point is whether the abortificent RU-486 is "safe"; it's not, says Neumayr, it greatly increases the risk of septic shock. So there.
- But if you're tired of political science, go see a movie: Shawn Macomber casts a cold eye on sentimental reactions to March of the Penguins.