How Sex, Politics, Money and Religion are Killing Planet Earth

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Science is Neither Subjective nor Liberal – Creationism, Intelligent Design and the Religious Brainwashing of American Children

“…reality has a well-known liberal bias.” – Steven Colbert

All opinions are not equal. The idea that aluminum foil on the head repels alien infiltration into the mind is an opinion. Some ideas are based on reality and others are not.

The difference between science and faith is that science questions. In science, there are no set in stone or on paper absolutes. All theory must be falsifiable, and rigorous scrutiny is not only recommended, it is seen as essential to the establishment of fact. Science seeks truth through perpetual examination. Faith, on the other hand, demands compliance without question. The faithful are expected to accept as “truth” an interpretation of reality based on scriptures that are viewed as infallible. To question the infallibility of the venerated documents, even when overwhelming evidence suggests fundamental flaws, is heresy.

Once upon a time, the Church had an absolute monopoly on “truth.” To question the Church’s truth was dangerous, and many great thinkers were imprisoned or lost their lives defending scientific reason. Independent women who dared to exercise sovereignty over their own bodies and minds were burned at the stake, along with those who questioned Biblical “truth” (as interpreted by Church autocrats) in humanity’s greatest genocidal campaign. We have come a long way in history since those times, but some contemporary zealots would have us return to them. The single entity that liberated humanity from the Dark Ages was the ability to employ reason, and higher reasoning today remains the ultimate tool we have to prevent our descent into the dark recesses of fear and superstition.

Mother Jones recently published an article by Chris Mooney entitled “The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science,” which has over the past couple of weeks gone viral on the internet. If readers have not yet read this poignant piece, they should do so, as it casts light on some of the more frustrating aspects of our contemporary political climate. One of the points Mooney makes in his article is that the science of climate change has now become viewed as a leftist political agenda. Science is a liberal cause.

One of the more interesting features of the Blogger software is that it allows the blogger to view sources of traffic to the blog. This feature enables the user to see other websites where the blog is being discussed, which can often be enlightening. A few weeks ago, killing Mother aroused some interest from a far right fundamentalist group who referred to this author as “anti-human” among other derogatory labels based on my belief that human life is not exceptional among species and that rather, all life should be viewed as sacred.

This weekend, I happened upon another commentary that referred to one of my posts as a “classic leftie argument from a recent opinionated blog.” While I will admit that I am certainly opinionated (who isn’t?), the “classic leftie” dig I found rather offensive, particularly in light of the fact that Mr. Tadpole (the commenter) and I had been having what I thought was a civil discussion on the topic of collectivism and individualism, and he suggested he would, “meet [me] halfway.” Clearly, he isn’t budging from his stubborn position on the right at all. His argument was taken directly out of the left/right political playbook, and he ascribed opinions to me that I actually did not express in my post. Tadpole did not refute any of my claims directly, he simply tarred me with the liberal brush, and sadly, for most people, that was all that was needed for him to support his arguments.

When did we become a people who can sum up the entirety of infinite potential within the two-dimensional, black and white confines of left or right? While my blog post that elicited Tadpole’s criticism was peppered with some opinions, they were not the opinions Tadpole ascribed to me.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about being described as a “classic leftie” is that much of my commentary on this blog is scientific. I take great pains to back up my opinions with supporting evidence from a variety of multidisciplinary sources. When I draw conclusions, they are based on real evidence, not just some knee jerk liberal political orientation. When did scientific fact become a matter of political subjectivity? While my political views are definitely, for the most part, liberal, I reject the idea that certain topics such as economics, science and history, based on verifiable facts, are in any way subjective. Facts cannot and should not be constrained by political opinion, but we have become a people who think they can.

There is a difference between fact and opinion. One of the greatest features of our democracy is that all people are entitled to express and hold their own opinions. However, a sad extension of our right to free speech and opinion has been that many people suffer from the misconception that all opinions are valid. They are not. While you are entitled to an opinion, this right does not in any way impede your opinion from perhaps being a delusion. Unfortunately the American mainstream media further exacerbates the problem by giving air time to opinions that have no validity at all, giving these unfounded delusions an air of credibility. The public are tricked into believing that there are actually two sides of scientific issues like evolution and climate change. In the scientific community, these issues are not at all controversial. They are settled scientific fact, but the media presents them as if scientific controversy exists. Political controversy exists, that’s all.

Exacerbating the scientific search for reality is the new politicization of religion, and the Republican Party is now the religious right’s choir boys. Just because the current political right wing is mired in religious superstition and the active refutation of settled science, doesn’t mean that science has a liberal bias. One political party may have chosen delusion as their national platform, but that does not mean the other has an exclusive monopoly on the truth or that truth is politically subjective.

Fundamentalists treat scripture like it is the go-to source for everything. Science, history, marriage counseling, you name it, adherents believe the Bible is the single source of “truth.” Any reality that contradicts Biblical truth is just the devil playing tricks. If logic, reason and verifiable facts refute a two-thousand year old document that doesn’t even recognize the existence of most of the Earth’s continents, these tools of reason must be the work of the devil. The Bible is NOT a scientific reference, yet a large percentage of the American population treats it as if it is. The fact that we now have only one political party that is dealing in the realm of reason is cause for alarm.

Today I received an email from a 17 year old student in Louisiana urging me to sign a petition to fight the state school board for the right to learn about evolution in his science classes. In 2008, the Louisiana legislature and Governor Bobby Jindal signed into law R.S.17:285.1 (the Louisiana Science Education Act), which allows teachers to introduce materials into science classes for the critique of scientific theories, specifically evolution, climate change, the origins of life and (oddly, since it is not a ‘theory’) human cloning. But the above issues are settled science. While scrutiny still exists within the framework of the various mechanisms of evolution, the primordial planetary conditions that gave rise to life and the intensity and/or timeframe of climate change, the theories themselves are not the subjects of any scientific controversy. Louisiana lawmakers have specifically stated that their aim is to introduce creationism, climate change denial and anti-evolution dogma into the science classrooms of Louisiana. Now they can.

In other words, in defiance of the United States Constitution, which states “no law respecting an establishment of religion (1),” shall be imposed upon citizens, R.S. 17:285.1 does just that. Creationism, aspects of climate change denial and anti-evolution are not scientific theories. They are religious opinions that have no place in the science classroom.

Sadly, the Louisiana School Board is occupied not by scientists or even educators but by political figures who thrive on the far right platform of superstition and dogma. These people suffer from the delusion that truth is subjective and that opinion=fact. Creationism belongs in the realm of opinion that includes the idea that the Earth is a flat disk at the center of the universe. Teaching such ideas to children in science class confuses them as to the nature of reality.

It took hundreds of years for enlightened thinkers to claw the way out of the Dark Ages and into the Age of Reason. Those who seek to teach opinion as fact would send us back to an age where everything that happens on Earth is controlled by a dictator in the sky. While this simplified view of the world might be comforting for some, it also creates a dangerous precedent where people can deny responsibility in the problems that plague the world today.

As climate change now ravages the world around us, creating the atmospheric climate in which record-breaking tornadoes ravage the Southeastern United States and the great Mississippi River swells to swallow up the heartland, we need a population that is able to think and respond appropriately. As the scientists’ dire predictions become reality, we should take the opportunity to recognize that they are correct in their theories. Unfortunately, down in Louisiana, if R.S. 17:285.1 is not overturned, a generation of children will grow up thinking these catastrophic events are God’s will and not the preventable folly of humanity.



21 comments:

  1. Wait just a minute. Is the thing about Louisiana true? I do live in Louisiana, but I don't watch TV anymore because to me it is a propaganda machine.

    But please tell me this isn't true, I don't want to believe we are really this insane. I keep hoping we will realize how stupid and insane we are, but with things like this it seems we never will.

    This is why I hate this state. I'm glad to have finally graduated high school and now off to college to major in Environmental Science.

    Though unfortunately, my baby sister just started school, and I already don't like what I hear when she comes home. She talks about God and heaven and hell. She even told me one time when I mentioned that I lied about something that I would go to hell for that.

    It broke my heart, so I tried to tell her that God is actually everything meaning we are all one. So he would never send us to hell.

    Fortunately she easily took up the idea of God being everything, but won't let go of the idea of hell and heaven. And my mom won't tell her anything differently because she's Catholic herself, so she actually encourages her.

    I can only hope she questions these beliefs when she gets older like I did, but I really don't need the schools more of this religious propaganda on her. It will only make it harder for her to question what she is told.

    Ah, well, this is getting long, so I am going to end it here.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, wait, I forgot that I wanted to say something else.

    I just wanted to say that a lot of science is actually subjective because scientists are making observations based on their limited perceptions. The human mind is not capable of understanding all of reality.

    Our minds are kinda of like a filtering machine. We filter parts of reality with the more beliefs we have. And all humans have countless number of beliefs limiting our ability to understand reality. So it is like we are all living in an illusion.

    I would expand more on this, but then I would be getting into spirituality and that can't be proven with physical evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  3. kalivin, I am sorry but the information about Louisiana is true. Sign the petition. Maybe it will help. You are correct that science is limited by the ability of scientists to observe and understand what they observe. My point is that the basic scientific method incorporates rules to make every effort at objectivity. This attitude is diametrically opposed to the religious world view. We are mere biological beings, limited by our insignificance in the universe in our ability to perceive reality, but at least we should have the common sense to dismiss that which we know to be blatantly false. Good luck with your studies! The world needs more educated people.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh, ok, I thought you were saying in your blog that science is objective and that there is no subjectivity involved in their observations.

    But, yeah, science does try its best to be as objective as possible to find truth unlike religion.

    Sometimes I feel like we are sill in the Dark Ages...or we're in another one.

    Hopefully some big- and I mean really big- change will come soon to push humanity forward. I feel like there is because it seems we are reaching a breaking point in well...everything. Or perhaps we will kill ourselves in our stupidity, it could go either way.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature"

    Economics, called "the dismal science",
    too often is used in defiance
    ...of natural law,
    ...and so its great flaw
    will earn punishment for noncompliance.

    An unholy alliance is here,
    with Republicans stirring up fear,
    ...as the religious right
    ...and capitalists unite
    blaming others, they make shit appear.

    Pardon my language, but the word fits and the pun is intended.

    It is a lot more tragic than comic to note that too many conservatives oppose conservation, too many people on the religious right don't care enough about God's Creation to try to save it, and too many of the truly rich and powerful actively work to make things worse.

    I know that the outlook is grim,
    and together, we're out on a limb,
    ...but may I suggest
    ...that we not get depressed,
    work together with vigor and vim.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have much to say. I just can't type it right now.

    I'm thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  7. kalivin, something will give one way or another. At the end of the day, if we use our powers of reason, we will save our own species from extinction, otherwise, Earth will prevail quite nicely without us.

    Rhymer, I am not adverse to profanity when it is fitting:) As always, your words sum up hundreds of mine with only a few. As to your last point, check out a recent article in Orion by Derrick Jensen. He makes the same point - Earth is worth fighting for.

    http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/6266

    ReplyDelete
  8. Great flaws in economics:

    1. Growth is always good. Yeah, right, but there are limits and it hurts to hit them, especially at high speed.
    2. The Tragedy of the Commons. Discussed earlier on this blog.
    3. The rich and powerful conduct class warfare against the middle class and poor, increasing the inequality in distribution of wealth and income.
    4. Boom and bust is built into capitalism.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Excellent points Rhymer. I think it is worth noting that the above are hallmarks of the neoliberal capitalist economic model and that other economic models do exist. Unfortunately, neither our "left" or our "right" in the United States are willing to discuss any of them. And I am not necessarily talking about socialism or communism (although certain aspects of each of these would certainly be preferrable to the status quo). For all the mantra of "free" trade, it would seem none of the proponents actually read Adam Smith. Smith's liberal economy did not include corporations and also did not allow for any "externalities." Fodder for further blog posts. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank you, killing Mother, for the link. Your essays inspire me to write my little rhymes, and I like how you back them up with links to supporting documents.

    ReplyDelete
  11. tsisageya, I am still looking forward to your thoughtful insights.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks again for a very thoughtful post. While I agree with your point of view, I think one can critique science using some of the same points you make here. "The difference between science and faith is that science questions." True, but those engaged in science often do not question where their research is leading or whether the "benefit" that will accrue to humans (because it's always about the benefit to humans, as opposed to other life on earth) will have any negative effects.

    Of course those doing the research can't really always say or imagine what the negative effects might be because the research is done in isolation. They pull out single factors and focus on those. Since life is complex we can't imagine what might happen if we introduce one change into that complexity.

    Ironically the denial of climate change is not just done by religious kooks but by those who have absolute faith in the scientific method. They believe scientists will be able to figure out the problem and solve it. Of course, climate change to the extent that it's human induced would not have been possible without scientific achievements.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Eam, Your points are all valid. Thank you for your insight.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dear Followers and Readers,
    I was very thankful for all the wonderful insights and comments you posted for this piece. Unfortunately, Blogger ate them:(, and I fear they are lost forever in cyberspace. I copied and pasted one of the missing comments from my inbox below because I couldn't bear to lose it. Thanks again Rhymer.

    "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature"

    Economics, called "the dismal science",
    too often is used in defiance
    ...of natural law,
    ...and so its great flaw
    will earn punishment for noncompliance.

    An unholy alliance is here,
    with Republicans stirring up fear,
    ...as the religious right
    ...and capitalists unite
    blaming others, they make shit appear.

    Pardon my language, but the word fits and the pun is intended.

    It is a lot more tragic than comic to note that too many conservatives oppose conservation, too many people on the religious right don't care enough about God's Creation to try to save it, and too many of the truly rich and powerful actively work to make things worse.

    I know that the outlook is grim,
    and together, we're out on a limb,
    ...but may I suggest
    ...that we not get depressed,
    work together with vigor and vim.

    ReplyDelete
  15. killing Mother, I can't tell you how long I've sat here typing and thinking about what I wanted to say. At first, my comment became a novel, such was it's too-much-info quality. I canceled that one then tried to simplify, but no good.

    I guess I'm not supposed to speak on this. You said it best, killing Mother.

    If I ever do settle on a good enough comment, I hope it's okay to come back here even though time has passed.

    ReplyDelete
  16. P.S. Thank you for posting Rhymer's words. And thank you, Rhymer.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Eam, very good points if you ask me. I recommend your reading Jerry Mander who's been speaking to these things for many years now. He talks about how technology is introduced to the general public with no debate whatsoever and becomes entrenched into our consumerist culture. That's some highfalutin words for money-making propaganda, I believe.

    Three comments in a row is too much isn't it? Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Our right wing anti-rational fall-in-liners address themselves as conservatives. Your distinction between science as critical thinking and orthodoxy as submission or heresy makes it clear that "Reactionaries" names them better. They do not conserve. They consume. But I have not read the word "Reactionary" anywhere on the web. How would I go about spreading that word?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous, Start a blog:) I like your point about conservatives not "conserving" but "consuming." Good one! I might give that some thought. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well, in america if you look at it one way, the idea of raping the land for private gain and bounty is an old and long held position (hence "conservative") by the WASPs who originally settled here. In fact it could be argued that america was founded in large part to be an empire, created in order to raise a continental army which could be used to expand and conquer the rest of the continent.

    And of course almost all media these days is designed to retard critical thinking, which is why people can't seem to grasp any of the truth about these things.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous, your empire concept is one I agree with. America certainly was founded on imperialist ideals, with all of Europe coming across the ocean in droves to rape and pillage. Then we picked up where the British and Spanish left off after they left. This is our cultural heritage.

    ReplyDelete