Lately I've been shocked at the growth of anti-intellectual, anti-scientific attitudes in the people I meet and in the media.

A couple of nights ago, I was channel surfing and caught the end of a discussion O'Reilly ("O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News Channel) was having with a group of experts. Apparently, they had been discussing the research that indicates that even very small children are sexual creatures (something that has been well documented in the scientific literature and has been known for some time. O'Reilly was incensed. He kept asking the people on the panel something like "What is the value to society of knowing this kind of thing," as if to say that knowledge that does not have an immediate, positive, social application should not be discovered. Perhaps he was saying that research that challenges established beliefs should not be allowed. This is the height of censorship for one thing. For another, it reflects shocking ignorance. His panellists sat their stunned. He asked the question twice, in the last 15 seconds of the show then without giving them the time or opportunity to develop an answer, he closed the show saying he didn't like Kinsey or his research either.

The fact is that babies and little children masturbate, they stimulate themselves, they play with themselves and each other if they have the opportunity, and they like the way it feels. Nearly all babies do this. We are born sexual creatures, it is natural, it is normal, and it has been going on for millions of years with no disastrous or harmful consequences.

If the general public is not informed of this information, we end up with the kind of thing we saw in Houston a few months ago in which a fanatically religious mother drowned her five children to get Satan out of them. Childhood sexuality is not sin, it is not evil, it is not satanic, it is not evidence for demon posession, and it is just a normal biological process. Yes, O'Reilly, there is a social consequence of creating a society that is ignorant of childhood sexuality. Yes, O'Reilly, there is a consequence of allowing supersition and ignorance to grow unchecked in our society. If you think research and education are expensive, you should try ignorance.

One of the things that I can't figure out is why O'Reilly takes this position. There are at least two possiblities.

One: He is so ignorant and uninformed and closed minded himself that he finds any discussion of sexuality offensive and objects to funding research designed to better understand human sexuality, or

Two: He is playing the ratings game and has decided that their is a large enough segment of the listening audience who hasn't thought this issue through and will respond positively, in a knee jerk way, to anybody on TV who comes out against sex.

Either way, this is real scary. I have nightmares in which I watch America plunging into the dark ages.