As Gawker says about
David Brooks’s blooper correction: “We’d roll the laugh track if anyone actually knew what the
hell he was talking about. Or cared.” Also, check Paul Krugman’s funny-if-it-wasn’t-so-true refer
(this morning, too):
In its April Fools’ Day issue, Scientific American published a spoof editorial in which it
apologized for endorsing the theory of evolution just because it’s “the unifying concept for all of
biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time,” saying that “as editors, we had no
business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.” And it conceded that it had succumbed “to
the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators
or best-selling novelists do.”
The editorial was titled “O.K., We Give Up.” But it could just as well have been called “Why
So Few Scientists Are Republicans These Days.” Thirty years ago, attacks on science came
mostly from the left; these days, they come overwhelmingly from the right, and have the backing
of leading Republicans.
Scientific American may think that evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, but
President Bush declares that “the jury is still out.” Senator James Inhofe dismisses the vast body
of research supporting the scientific consensus on climate change as a “gigantic hoax.” And
conservative pundits like George Will write approvingly about Michael Crichton’s
anti-environmentalist fantasies.
If you’ve ever seen Krugman in person or on television, you’ll have noticed his darting eyes.
They say to me he laughs a lot.
