We all know Paul Krugman is a total freaking loon when talking about the economy. His complete and total lack of even the most fundamental understanding of how econmics works would keep him from getting any sort of job short of the one that he currently has, which is writing his flights of fancy for the New York Times. And if it weren't for the Slimes, I'm pretty sure no one else would allow him to babble on like he does.

However, Krugman has decided that showing his ignorance in the field of economics just hasn't been fulfilling lately. So, he decides to take on a whole new field. Now you might think that he would tackle something related to economics, or at the very least, politics. You'd be wrong. No, Krugman jumps ship and swims all the way out into the deep waters of creationism vs evolution. However, he laughingly attempts to relate the argument to both economics and politics, which simply makes for more entertaining reading.

Even though he is attempting to write an article on creationsim, Krugman just can't resist taking a poke at economics.

Mr. Kristol led by example, using The Public Interest to promote supply-side economics, a doctrine whose central claim - that tax cuts have such miraculous positive effects on the economy that they pay for themselves - has never been backed by evidence.

And not only does he take a poke at economics, he shows us all that he is not living in the real world where we have job growth, economic growth, unemployment dropping, economists raving about how good the economy is going, and TAX CUTS. But I guess it's just random chance that they all happened at the same time, because you know it's never been proven that tax cuts can do any good.

You might wonder how a discussion about supply side economics can work its way into a discussion about creationism. Believe it or not, Krugman makes the leap. He attempts to show how the "Evil Republicans" led by the "Corporate Gestapo" have paid off the economists and researchers so that they will produce reports in their favor. In this way, Krugman speculates, they intend to discredit scientific theory.

The most spectacular example is the campaign to discredit research on global warming. Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, many people have the impression that the issue is still unresolved. This impression reflects the assiduous work of conservative think tanks, which produce and promote skeptical reports that look like peer-reviewed research, but aren't. And behind it all lies lavish financing from the energy industry, especially ExxonMobil.

So let me get this straight. Greenpeace and a few scientitsts say that the earth is steadily getting hotter based on evidence gathered over a few hundred years and this makes an "overwhelming scientific consensus?" What about the overwhelming number of realistic scientists who point to global weather trends that span over thousands, ten thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years? What about the fact that tons of the Greenpeace "evidence" has been debunked, and some of it found to be outright fradulant? How about the fact that no one has any real, hard, evidence of any one specific thing that we, the people of the workd, are doing to increase the temperature of the planet? But to Krugman, all the proof he needs is that some research was done by scientists funded by "Evil Corporations." That immediately makes the entire research fake and all its findings null and void.

Oddly enough, he then attempts to say the same thing about creationism v. evolution. Since the creationism argument has been brought up by a bunch of religious nutcases, then it is automatically null and void before any evidence is presented. He even admits this bias, if not in so many words.

Creationists failed when they pretended to be engaged in science, not religious indoctrination: "creation science" was too crude to fool anyone.

Since it comes from a creationist, it must have no scientific basis. Thus, it is invalid. What a convenient way of winning an argument. I think I'll try that next time. "Since I don't agree with you, you're an idiot. And since you're an idiot, I can't believe in or agree with anything you've said."

He then goes on to assume facts not in evidence.

The important thing to remember is that like supply-side economics or global-warming skepticism, intelligent design doesn't have to attract significant support from actual researchers to be effective. All it has to do is create confusion, to make it seem as if there really is a controversy about the validity of evolutionary theory.

Now, I have no idea what evolutionary theory Krugman is referring to. If he's referring to the micro-evolution that happens around us all the time and creates small changes within a species to allow adaptation, then he's right. It's a solid, proven, scientific theory. However, if he's referring to macro-evolution, which says that we all sprang up from slime, then he is completly and totally dead wrong about there being no controversy. There is plenty of controversy. What there is an alarming lack of is evidence and proof that any such thing ever has or ever will happen. Now, does lack of evidence for evolution prove creation science? No. Just as lack of evidence for creation science does not prove evolution.

But again, I'm not here to argue creationism vs. evolution. I'm simply here to point out how much of an idiot Krugman is. He starts with a flawed theory, that anyone who says anything he disagrees with is just a corporate shill and must be immediately disbelieved. He then uses this theory and his opinion to attempt to prove that evolution is the be-all and end-all of science. Proof or evidence be damned, he's going to stick up for what he thinks. My advice, Paul, is find something you're good at. Because it's not economics, and it's certainly not science.

Posted by: Drew at 08:44 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1045 words, total size 6 kb.