1
::::::::
Perhaps it's a sign of the times that important ideological differences between Republican and Democratic perspectives first get played out in a comedic venue. Jim Cramer vs. Jon Stewart, for example, gave us a moment to examine the implications of financial practices that are bereft of any social conscience. Now we have Bill O'Reilly vs Stephen Colbert, on the ideological conflict between science and religion. Among those who would have to be included in O'Reilly's gallery of disagreeing "pinheads" would be Stephen Hawking, the celebrated British theoretical physicist, who concluded last year that gravity was a necessary condition of life, but that God was not. If O'Reilly had the interest (and perhaps the intellectual capability) to pursue his argument, he would get to the place where, as Colbert implied, he would have to not only acknowledge that belief in God is a matter of faith, but also that intellectually he was in no position to disparage those who do not share that faith.In fairness to O'Reilly, his ignorance of and disrespect for scientific inquiry, while easily ridiculed, is not that idiosyncratic. He speaks for a political constituency with a significant number of members who reject the "theory" of evolution and some of whom would shape their environmental policies on a literal reading of scripture. With the House in Republican control, it should be clear that for at least the next two years, Republican policy will reflect to an unfortunate degree an anti-intellectual, fundamental Christian bias.
It should be equally clear that defending science and the kind of public education that nurtures critical thinking will not be a priority of the Democrats, who seem to share the Republican perception that political reality is best served by embracing the least thoughtful impulses of American society.
