Thursday Hate

A recent entry from the Freakonomics blog sparked my thoughts on fascist tendencies earlier this week...

The new book Superfreakonomics was released yesterday, and their chapter on realistic solutions to climate change and global warming is drawing fire from the left. This is extremely ironic since Levitt and Dubner's last book was a target of the right for exposing the flaws of No Child Left Behind and their theories regarding legalized abortion and violent crime.

"One of the saddest things for me about climate science is how political it has become," writes guest blogger Nathan Myhrvold. "Science works by having an open dialog that ultimately converges on the truth, for the common benefit of everyone. Most scientific fields enjoy this free flow of ideas."

Indeed. I wrote elsewhere discussing this topic that "the evolution versus intelligent design debate is where this is most evident. The whole argument is pointless, because one is fact, the other is philosophy. Neither is wrong. They are mutually exclusive - not even competing ideologies. Instead we waste precious time and resources trying to put philosophy in our science classes while quashing transcendent thought."

Teaching "why" has no place in the lab. "Why" belongs in the philosophical round table; in theology class. "Why" can't be tested, proven, or further defined. Leaving "why" out of the labratory frees up our time to answer "what" and "how?" And all the while those still-forming student brains are churning and whirring, asking "why?" silently to themselves. And "why" will be discussed in church, at the family dinner table, and in the basement with friends while passing a bowl. And the most important facet here is that "why" is asked and answered as freely as possible.

This is the reason why others want - not to ask, but to tell - our young minds what "why" is. Why they want to teach intelligent design in our science classrooms. To replace fact-finding and the art of deduction with blind faith - the complete anathma to the scientific process. And in doing so waste all our efforts to boost our national science and math scores, which include taking a bloody scythe to art, music, physical education, and even recess.

What kind of an example is that while trying to teach our students to adhere to strict scientific principles in order survive in an increasingly competitive world? Why would someone actually want to teach blind faith in that which cannot be proven?

Because fascists can't stand independent thought, on the left or the right, regarding climate change or the freedom to have a legal abortion, or to have sex at all. How can you control everyone else otherwise?