Why Evangelicals Get So Worked Up About Evolution
A few years ago, I got hip-deep into the Intelligent Design (ID) controversy and gave it a qualified (opposable) thumbs-up. Here’s my quick position, because I know some readers will be horrified if I don’t clarify:
(1) I do not think the Biblical Genesis account should be treated as a literal chronology, as an eyewitness account of (say) someone spending a week in the Bahamas. I think the writer was divinely inspired, and really did “see” how God created the universe and its contents, but that it would be hard for such a person to comprehend what he had just witnessed. (In contrast, when the writers of the gospels report that Jesus walked on water and healed the lame, there can be no ambiguity there. If that stuff didn’t happen, then somebody was consciously lying.)
(2) Most defenders of the orthodox, Darwinian account are hilariously overconfident in the weight of the evidence behind the falsifiable portions of their worldview.
(3) Michael Behe is right when he distinguishes between outward behavior and the informational requirements behind such outcomes. For example, even if it turns out to be the case (and I have no dog in the fight one way or the other) that every living thing on Earth can trace its heritage back to a common single ancestor, from this it would not follow that there is no longer “any need for the God hypothesis” or “role for an intelligent creator.” If you need to have an exquisitely calibrated external environment, and an exquisitely calibrated initial living cell, in order for “blind chance and natural selection” to then spawn all living things, then it leads us to wonder why we happen to be living in just-so of a world. This is where (in my opinion) the ID people are making serious contributions, and where (in my opinion) most biologists and chemists miss the argument completely. It would be like finding a house in the woods that was nice and cozy, and one guy saying, “I don’t know why you keep asking, ‘Whose house is this?’ I can explain the temperature controls in natural terms, using that thing on the wall over there with numbers on it.”
But the above isn’t really the point of my post right now. Instead, I want to explain why the typical evangelical Christian gets so worked up over this topic. You see, a lot of agnostic (or even Christian, for that matter) believers in the orthodox Darwinian account will say things like, “Look, whether or not people and apes share a common ancestor is just a question of history and biology. It doesn’t have any bearing on our ethics, our philosophy, or our religious values. The Nazis were still wrong, whether or not you believe in the Genesis account–so Ben Stein is a moron. Let’s stop wringing our hands over what science teaches us about the natural world, for crying out loud.”
OK, so here’s why a lot of evangelicals don’t buy that line: the proponents of “evolution” don’t either. People use the Darwinian view of man’s origin all the time, outside of narrow biological sphere. For example, the friendly Keynesian Daniel Kuehn says stuff like this all the time, though in the below he’s quoting Tyler Cowen:
[Tyler Cowen:] “There is nothing in the (very useful) data cited by Mulligan, in his posts on supply and employment, which runs against the Keynesian story. Of course I am a fan of the blogosphere, but sometimes it frightens me when I see it having influence over research interpretations. We’re just a small number of apes sitting at computers, relative to the overall literature. When it comes to Keynesian economics, I don’t always see we apes as reflecting the broader literature very well, yet we are read by a relatively large number of apes. We can expect this problem to get worse, as people learn the “blogosphere versions” of different points of v[i]ew.”
[Daniel Kuehn:] Nothing Mulligan has been saying runs againts Keynesianism: check.
We are just smart primates and should never forget that: check.
Blogosphere versions of economic theories really distort peoples’ perception of the science: check.
The one thing that Cowen didn’t get right in my view is what I didn’t quote here…
As I have tried a few times to ask Daniel, what does the word “just” do in the above claims? The next time a brilliant chemist gets a tough question from a wise-aleck doctoral student, he should just say, “I don’t need to answer that, since–as we learned on Tuesday–you are just a collection of molecules.”
Historically, Christians–especially the dogmatic Bible-thumpers–were threatened by Darwin’s theory of evolution precisely because they knew people would “apply” it the way Cowen and Kuehn did in the quotation above.
And Now, the End Is Near…
Robert Wenzel’s EPJ Alert tipped me off to the fact that excess reserves are finally dropping, while required reserves are rising. Wenzel actually looks at the Fed’s data release, whereas I had been lazy and only checked the FRED graphs (which apparently are a month behind).
Anyway, for a long time people have been telling me, “Bob, make sure you let us know when the excess reserves start getting lent out.” I will do some more investigating when I get back into town (I’m in upstate New York for a wedding right now), but it looks like the time has come.
Who Said It?
It is a terrible blemish on the mixed economy and a sad reflection on my generation of economists that we’re not the Merlins that can solve the problem. Inflation is deep in the nature of the welfare state. Even when there is slack in the system, unemployment doesn’t exert downward pressure on prices the way it did under “cruel” competition.
The answer, and other cool quotes, here.
Extended Arthur Laffer Appearance on CNBC
My former boss gets the chance to spell out his worldview here:
Incidentally, I had someone ask me (because of the above interview) whether Laffer had always been so nuanced on whether tax rate reductions would lead to tax revenue increases. And the answer is, “Yes, that has always been his position.” In other words, it was dumbed-down supply-side partisans who “learned” the Laffer Curve and then said, “Tax cuts always pay for themselves.” Laffer himself never said, and in fact–duh–the actual Laffer Curve shows that there is a whole region where tax rate reductions lead to revenue losses.
Incidentally, to give Austrians more nuance (since the only thing they might know of Laffer is the Peter Schiff debacle), he opposed Nixon’s decision to close the gold window. He knew that that would be a disaster and lead to loose monetary policy. Note in the video above, he doesn’t just excoriate high tax rates, he also rips government spending and calls for a return to “sound money.”
I’m Still Not Seeing the Deflationary Threat
Today the BLS put out its official Consumer Price Index numbers. From July 2010 to July 2011, unadjusted CPI rose 3.6%.
Yesterday the Producer Price Index (PPI) numbers came out. Here is the breakdown of 12-month changes by category:
Finished goods +7.2%
Intermediate goods +11.6%
Crude goods +22.6%
If I didn’t know any better, I’d say prices can rise even in the face of high unemployment…
Murphy Twin Spin
On Monday I talked about deleveraging and not fearing the reaper.
Today I have an infomercial for the 4-week Mises Academy class starting next week on the sovereign debt crisis. (I’m still taking suggestions for the syllabus, if anyone has ideas.)
Krugman’s Baseline for Economy Back in 2009, Without Stimulus Package
We all know that Krugman has been saying “I told you so” ever since the Obama stimulus package didn’t usher in happy times. However, the naive outsider might get the sense that Krugman disagreed with the actual analysis conducted by Romer-Bernstein (with their infamous chart projected unemployment with and without the stimulus). Yet as I’m going to point out in tonight’s final lecture in the Mises Academy class, things are a lot more nuanced.
First of all, when the Romer-Bernstein projection came out, Krugman agreed that their multipliers were basically the same as his own. So they were basically in agreement about how much the Obama stimulus package would help.
The only disagreement, therefore, was in their projection of the baseline trajectory, i.e. what the economy would do in the absence of stimulus. Romer-Bernstein famously had unemployment without stimulus peaking at around 9 percent. Of this, Krugman said:
One more point: the estimate of what would happen to the economy in the absence of a stimulus plan seems kind of optimistic. The chart above has unemployment ex-stimulus peaking at 9 percent in the first quarter of 2010 and coming down through the year; the CBO estimates an average unemployment rate of 9 percent for 2010, so the Obama people are more optimistic than the CBO, and a lot more optimistic than I am.
OK, so maybe Krugman is a genius after all. If he thought, say, that the economy without stimulus would peak at 12 percent unemployment, then he correctly called everything. But in an op ed that same month, he had written:
Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office came out with its latest analysis of the budget and economic outlook. The budget office says that in the absence of a stimulus plan, the unemployment rate would rise above 9 percent by early 2010, and stay high for years to come.
Grim as this projection is, by the way, it’s actually optimistic compared with some independent forecasts. Mr. Obama himself has been saying that without a stimulus plan, the unemployment rate could go into double digits.
It’s true, he didn’t give a specific number, but I don’t think Krugman in January 2009 had any idea just how bad the economy would be, such that with the “help” of the (too weak) Obama stimulus, unemployment would exceed 10 percent at the peak.
In other words, when Krugman says, “I knew Romer was setting us up for failure, so don’t use her mistake as an argument against Keynesianism,” what Krugman means is, “Their own analysis told us this wasn’t going to be big enough.” Krugman explicitly agreed with the general estimate of the multipliers, and although he was more pessimistic than they were about the economy ex-stimulus, he didn’t give any evidence (that I have seen) that he knew just how bad the baseline would be.
Thus, Krugman’s own track record on this is entirely consistent with the Austrian view that the Obama stimulus made things worse, and that the Keynesians are just playing the non-falsifiable card of saying, “Well the baseline was worse than we realized.”
Yes, Ron Paul Is Getting Screwed, But We Must Ignore It
The major media’s treatment of Ron Paul following his near-tie for first at the Iowa straw poll was so over-the-top that Jon Stewart (hardly a tea-bagging libertarian Fed-hater) called foul, as well as Politico’s Roger Simon (again, not himself a Paulian).
In response, we’ve seen the usual non sequiturs. “Oh none of this proves that the poll was rigged,” “There’s no bias, people just don’t think he can win,” “Either show me video with lizard people smoking cigars, or shut up,” etc.
The one actual bit of analysis I’ve seen is from Salon’s Steve Kornacki. Don’t get me wrong, Kornacki’s arguments are absurd–as we’ll see in a minute–but at least he is trying to explain why the Iowa straw poll is so signficant for everyone but Ron Paul. Let’s be clear: That’s the case that the media’s defenders need to make. If the media never paid attention to the straw poll, then their dismissal of Paul’s near-tie for first would be fine. Yet that’s not what happens. The straw poll is potent enough to get Pawlenty to drop out, or to make Sean Hannity say to Mike Huckabee after he came in 2nd in the Iowa straw poll back in 2007:
HANNITY:…Governor, look, there were two winners yesterday. Obviously, Mitt Romney had a huge day. He went for it, wanted to win, and he won by a big margin. You came in second and surprised a lot of people, a very strong showing. What happened? What was the dynamic?
FORMER GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE, R-ARK.: People were responding to the message. You know, it really was a David-Goliath moment. We went out there with a smooth stone and a sling and a whole lot of hardy volunteers, some of whom drove 600 miles to be there. It was truly incredible. And we had very little money, but we had the message, the fair tax, consistent conservative views on things like sanctity of life. People responded to that. Newt Gingrich last week had said that I was a top-tier candidate, and I think Saturday validated that.
HANNITY: You know, I would actually agree with you. I would expect, Governor, that your poll numbers will be up significantly as a result of this. There’s some momentum building here. Does it make it different because Rudy Giuliani wasn’t there, Senator McCain wasn’t there? Does that take a little bit of the victory away, or do you think it’s just as good as if they were?
(In fairness, when I was trying to come up with a Jon Stewart-esque double standard with Hannity on this year’s result, all I could find was him telling a caller to stop making fun of Ron Paul supporters. Note, Hannity didn’t say, “Ron Paul’s strong showing in Ames means he got a lot of momentum now…” like he did with Huckabee, but I did want to note that he was civil in the above clip.)
So now we see what Kornacki has to do. He must explain why a strong showing by Ron Paul in Ames means nothing, but a similar performance by (say) Pawlenty would have revealed information about the mood of the electorate. Even though I will criticize what Kornacki is going to say, at least he’s trying to justify the double-standard, as opposed to ignoring the actual claims of the Ron Paul supporters. Here we go:
[T]he straw poll isn’t really about the literal order of finish. It means different things to different candidates for different reasons, and its main function has long been to help winnow or otherwise clarify the GOP field. As Jonathan Bernstein put it, it’s “an unusually visible event during the invisible primary.” Thus, this year’s straw poll wasn’t about all of the GOP candidates; it was about two particular candidates who chose to (or were forced to) contest it aggressively and who had something very specific to prove.
One of them was Tim Pawlenty, who spent the last year trying and failing to find traction in early state polls (and with GOP donors) before making the straw poll his do-or-die test. When, after pouring considerable time, money and organizational muscle into the event, he managed to grab just 13 percent of the vote, Pawlenty flunked his own test, which is why he dropped out of the race on Sunday.
The other candidate with something to prove was Bachmann, who has shown surprising strength in Iowa polling, vaulting into the lead in the late spring. Given the crucial role that conservative Christians, Bachmann’s natural constituency, play in the Iowa GOP, this prompted serious talk that she might actually win the caucuses this winter — then wreak serious havoc in subsequent contests, and maybe (under a remote but not entirely implausible scenario) walk off with the nomination. This made the straw poll a crucial test for Bachmann: Could she put together an organization capable of harnessing the grass-roots energy she has sparked and delivering a victory? Or would we find out that her campaign really doesn’t have its act together, and that her star isn’t really that powerful? Her victory is further reason to believe she’s a serious caucus contender.
OK, fair enough, but so far this is just telling us what we already know: When it comes to other Republican contenders, the Iowa straw poll is a good indication of their organizational ability, their fundraising, their appeal to crucial demographics, etc. So why don’t the above points apply to Ron Paul? If Bachmann’s performance proves she can harness “the grass-roots energy she has sparked” and that “she’s a serious caucus contender,” then why doesn’t Paul’s nearly identical outcome prove the same of him?
Now let’s talk about Paul, who also put a major effort into the straw poll. But unlike Bachmann and Pawlenty, he didn’t really have much to prove. Why? Because the political world already knows that Paul has an army of unusually loyal and dedicated supporters who are willing to show up in large numbers at events like the straw poll and producing impressive-seeming vote totals for their candidate.
Ah, now we see the difference! We already know that Ron Paul gets people fired up to support him. So really, Iowa was significant for Michele Bachmann, because it proved she was as good a campaigner as Ron Paul.
Wait, Kornacki offers some more nuance:
They’ve been doing this for years now. Remember when Paul won the straw poll at the 2010 CPAC conference? Or in 2011? His supporters are very good at this kind of thing, channeling their unique passion into “money bombs,” Internet poll victories, and strong performances at straw polls and other events where a devoted minority can have an outsize influence.
So by nabbing 27.65 percent on Saturday, Paul didn’t actually do anything to change the prevailing perception of his campaign and its appeal. Bachmann and Pawlenty faced legitimate questions about their ability to effectively organize for the straw poll. But no one doubted the Paul campaign’s skills in this regard. The key question about Paul’s campaign is one that the straw poll was never going to help answer: Can he build on his sizable (but ultimately limited) base of core supporters and develop mass appeal within the Republican Party?
Hold on a second. How can Kornacki say this is old news? As the quotes from Hannity point out above, in the last cycle Mitt Romney came in first in Ames, and Huckabee came in second. Back in 2007, Ron Paul only got 9 percent of the straw poll vote–which at the time I’m sure the major media took as confirmation that he was “just a niche candidate” and not in the top-tier, like the long-shot-turned-blockbuster Mike Huckabee.
As I say, I have to hand it Kornacki. At least he’s trying. He realizes that his own narrative makes no sense, and so he tries to plug the chink in his armor:
And while it’s true that Paul’s 2011 Iowa straw poll performance (27.65 percent) is far better than his 2007 showing (9 percent), it’s worth remembering that at the time of the ’07 event his army was just emerging (and learning how to manipulate events like it).
Everyone got that? The reason the pundits ignored Ron Paul back in 2007 was that he hadn’t yet developed his army. But now that his army just blew away everybody else except Bachmann, we can still ignore him, because we’re quite confident that he’s peaked. You see, Paul’s message of fiscal responsibility, peace, and the Constitution spread like wildfire from around November 2007 (to leave room for the shocking “moneybombs”) to about July 2011. But Salon’s pros assure us that he’s got no room left to grow, and that’s why it makes perfect sense that Ron Paul was on zero of the Sunday talk shows following his near-tie, and why CNN today at the airport had a segment on how Rick Perry pronounces “nuclear” compared to George Bush. (I’m not making that up.)
As far as “electability,” here is what RealClearPolitics has to say (as of early August 17, 2011). I’m looking at the RCP Average result for President Obama against a given Republican contender:
Obama beats Romney by 3.1%
Obama beats Paul by 10.7%
Obama beats Pawlenty by 10.7%
Obama beats Perry by 10.8%
Obama beats Bachmann by 11.2%
Obama beats Huntsman by 14.0%
Obama beats Cain by 14.7%
Obama beats Gingrich by 14.7%
Obama beats Palin by 17.5%
So if we exclude Pawlenty who just dropped out, Ron Paul is technically the second-best candidate the Republicans have to beat Obama in the general election. So c’mon Republican voters, follow your own logic! Put aside platitudes about balanced budgets, respecting the Constitution, blah blah blah. If you can’t bring yourself to vote for a guy who implemented government health care, then your only choice–strategically speaking–is to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. Don’t do it because you (claim to) care about free markets, do it to beat Obama!
Last point, and sarcasm aside: I think we fans of Ron Paul need to admit to ourselves that there must be something to the whole “you guys are obnoxious” claim. I have noticed this type of thing when trying to argue with, say, proponents of the Fair Tax (or MMT). I can’t quite put my finger on it, but there’s something that drains your precious bodily fluids when you attempt such arguments, that you don’t necessarily have with other types of people. Obviously just because I lack the stamina to debate them for long stretches, doesn’t mean I’m right and they’re wrong. It does mean that in the interest of preserving my sanity, I try to limit such encounters.
So for some reason, this is the impression we are giving to people. I think Ron Paul supporters should take a cue from their hero. Dr. Paul didn’t go around whining about his unfair treatment; when people in the public eye do that, even if everything they say is valid, it sounds ridiculous.
Therefore, even though it is unequivocally true that Ron Paul is getting screwed by the major media, let’s not dwell on it. Let’s just keep spreading Dr. Paul’s revolutionary message of liberty, free markets, and peace. If we ignore the insults and the unfairness, evenhanded people like Jon Stewart will give us a break.
Recent Comments