De-Politicizing Science

Shadow To Light objects to the idea of Congress recognizing Darwin's contributions to humanity by designating his birthday as "Darwin Day".  He seems to think this is culture warfare, and undue politicization of science.

This is all yet another example of activists and politicians stinking up the place with their culture warring.  For this is nothing more than grandstanding that attempts to turn science itself into a political weapon and political debate. This is not “honoring science.”  It is politicizing science.  And the last thing Western civilization needs is the further politicization of science. -Mikey

Gosh, Mikey.  Why such a visceral reaction?  What in the world is political about this?  Oh, wait a minute.  I think I understand.  Mikey was reacting to a statement made by Hermant Mehta that says "it’s nice to see a member of Congress honoring science instead of denying it."  You see, what many politicians have done is to politicize science by de-funding or shutting down programs that don't advance their own political or religious agenda.  Mikey objects to politicians stepping away from those policies to simply celebrate science.

Among the greatest victims of the politicization of science has been the effort to create policies for the production of environmentally friendly and sustainable energy.  Political attacks on these policies  are spearheaded by well financed and influential science deniers such as the Koch brothers, working in conjunction with like-minded dinosaurs like Senator James Inhofe, as well as state legislative bodies across the country.  And Ted Cruz cites faulty satellite data in support of his contention that the science is unsettled.  These people have turned environmental science into a political football.  But Mikey doesn't have a problem with that.

And then there's the "anti-vax" movement, supported by our illustrious president-elect.  Trump has actually recommended that the timing and dosage of vaccines be modified in order to prevent instances of autism, as if he has a better understanding than the medical science community of how best to administer vaccinations, and what their effects will be.  Politicizing science to play games with public health policies could have disastrous consequences, but I see no objection coming from Mikey.

No, what Mikey objects to is recognizing Darwin's birthday, as if that could be more devastating than the potentially horrific consequences of science-denialist policies already being inflicted on us by our (especially Republican) political leaders.  Why couldn't they have made it Newton Day, or Einstein Day, or even Fleming Day, Mikey wonders.  Presumably, he wouldn't have had a problem with that.  Because it isn't just the idea of recognizing a scientist that makes it a detestable political act.  It's the idea of recognizing Darwin that makes it a political act that is detestable to science deniers.

For scientifically-minded atheists, Darwin is a great scientist, not especially different from others like Einstein or Newton, and certainly not an object of worship or deification.  But to Mikey and his ilk, Darwin is not just another scientist.  He is the God of atheism.  To recognize Darwin would be like honoring Satan.  I suppose if you believe in gods, then you might want to paint the whole world with your own superstitions.  You can find gods and demons and all sorts of spooky things wherever you look for them.  And you can pretend that there is a great battle going on between the forces good and evil, with God on one side, and Darwin on the other.

It's time to grow up.  Take a breath and calm down.  This isn't a religious holiday.  They're not talking about worshiping a god.  And there's nothing political about it.  Nobody is trying to use this as an excuse to influence our political policies.  It's just recognition of a man who made a great contribution to humanity, much like Martin Luther King did.  Oh, I forgot.  They're against MLK Day, too.  So the culture war goes on, I suppose.