Bush’s science advisor goes off message

I suspect it’s hard enough to advise this president about matters of science, but John Marburger’s job probably got harder last week after he strayed from the official GOP line on evolutionary biology.

As my friend Peter R. reminded me yesterday, Chris Mooney caught Bush’s science advisor offering a surprisingly candid assessment about politicized science at a major scientific conference recently.

When it’s your job to serve as the president’s in-house expert on science and technology, being constantly in the media spotlight isn’t necessarily a mark of distinction. But for President Bush’s stoically inclined science adviser John Marburger, immense controversy followed his blanket dismissal last year of allegations (now endorsed by 48 Nobel laureates) that the administration has systematically abused science. So it was more than a little refreshing last Wednesday to hear Marburger take a strong stance against science politicization and abuse on one issue where it really matters: evolution.

Speaking at the annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers, Marburger fielded an audience question about “Intelligent Design” (ID), the latest supposedly scientific alternative to Charles Darwin’s theory of descent with modification. The White House’s chief scientist stated point blank, “Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.” And that’s not all — as if to ram the point home, Marburger soon continued, “I don’t regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topic.”

Marburger’s right, of course, but that’s not the point; his dismissal of intelligent-design creationism is at odds with everything Bush has said on the topic of evolutionary biology, as well as standard rhetoric for Republicans nationwide.

Indeed, the president has never come right out and said he’s a creationist, but he’s come close.

In 1999, for example, when the Kansas Board of Education removed virtually all references to evolution in the state science standards, then-candidate Bush expressed support for the Kansas decision and endorsed “state and local” control of the evolution issue.

On Nov. 12, 1999, the New York Times carried the story further, noting that Bush had just announced that he favors teaching the biblical version of creation along with the scientific theory of evolution, despite a Supreme Court ruling that prohibits that very approach.

A month later, in an interview with U.S. News & World Report, Bush expanded on why he opposes existing law on schools teaching religious concepts of human origins.

“I have no problem explaining that there are different theories about how the world was formed. I mean, after all, religion has been around a lot longer than Darwinism…. I believe God did create the world. And I think we’re finding out more and more and more as to how it actually happened.”

Though it’s disconcerting to have someone this scientifically illiterate in the Oval Office, Bush nevertheless seems to have a science advisor who strongly disagrees with him on matters of biology.

So, how long, do you suppose, until Marburger is told his services are no longer needed?