Thursday, September 09, 2010

Science Scorned (by the Right)

This week's Nature has an editorial, Science scorned, that expresses some of my own concerns. I've pasted the whole thing below. Both republicans and democrats should find this worrying.

“The four corners of deceit: government, academia, science and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit. That's how they promulgate themselves; it is how they prosper.” It is tempting to laugh off this and other rhetoric broadcast by Rush Limbaugh, a conservative US radio host, but Limbaugh and similar voices are no laughing matter.

There is a growing anti-science streak on the American right that could have tangible societal and political impacts on many fronts — including regulation of environmental and other issues and stem-cell research. Take the surprise ousting last week of Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent Republican senator for Alaska, by political unknown Joe Miller in the Republican primary for the 2 November midterm congressional elections. Miller, who is backed by the conservative 'Tea Party movement', called his opponent's acknowledgement of the reality of global warming “exhibit 'A' for why she needs to go”.

The right-wing populism that is flourishing in the current climate of economic insecurity echoes many traditional conservative themes, such as opposition to taxes, regulation and immigration. But the Tea Party and its cheerleaders, who include Limbaugh, Fox News television host Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who famously decried fruitfly research as a waste of public money), are also tapping an age-old US political impulse — a suspicion of elites and expertise.

Denialism over global warming has become a scientific cause célèbre within the movement. Limbaugh, for instance, who has told his listeners that “science has become a home for displaced socialists and communists”, has called climate-change science “the biggest scam in the history of the world”. The Tea Party's leanings encompass religious opposition to Darwinian evolution and to stem-cell and embryo research — which Beck has equated with eugenics. The movement is also averse to science-based regulation, which it sees as an excuse for intrusive government. Under the administration of George W. Bush, science in policy had already taken knocks from both neglect and ideology. Yet President Barack Obama's promise to “restore science to its rightful place” seems to have linked science to liberal politics, making it even more of a target of the right.

US citizens face economic problems that are all too real, and the country's future crucially depends on education, science and technology as it faces increasing competition from China and other emerging science powers. Last month's recall of hundreds of millions of US eggs because of the risk of salmonella poisoning, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, are timely reminders of why the US government needs to serve the people better by developing and enforcing improved science-based regulations. Yet the public often buys into anti-science, anti-regulation agendas that are orchestrated by business interests and their sponsored think tanks and front groups.

In the current poisoned political atmosphere, the defenders of science have few easy remedies. Reassuringly, polls continue to show that the overwhelming majority of the US public sees science as a force for good, and the anti-science rumblings may be ephemeral. As educators, scientists should redouble their efforts to promote rationalism, scholarship and critical thought among the young, and engage with both the media and politicians to help illuminate the pressing science-based issues of our time.
Just in case you wonder whether Limbaugh actually said what was attributed to him, yes he did--and more.


16 comments:

Tom D 9/10/2010 12:29:00 AM  

Really? Perhaps it is time for you to come up out of the leftist fever swamp for a breath of fresh air.

Stan,  9/10/2010 01:06:00 AM  

It really is worrisome. It has happened before plenty of times where we see a civilization in the forefront of scientific progress, then poof! It dies off, usually for something religious and/or mystical. Fortunately for humanity we are no longer so isolated that it would take centuries to get back on track. Like you say, some other countries will pick up the slack and leave us to what we deserve.

Anthony E. Larson 9/10/2010 10:33:00 AM  

I suggest you consult the opinions of the man who founded your religion to discover his views on science. Then you might be less inclined to loose sleep over our modern scientific views. Joseph Smith paints a very different conceptual picture of science than the one you seem to espouse. If you truly believe him to be a prophet, then you should conform your views on science to be more like his. This isn't politics; it's common sense, based in revelation. Try it; you'll like it. (grin)

kristine N 9/10/2010 01:37:00 PM  

Why should anyone go to a non-scientist to explain science to them? Sorry, but when discussing non-spiritual matters, objective facts and truths as revealed by the scientific method are far more convincing than any revelation.

Anonymous,  9/10/2010 03:00:00 PM  

How can we trust such organizations that are in defiance towards God? By this I am specifically referring to the institution of Darwinian Evolution. There is no part of Darwinian Evolution that allows for God. I have repeatedly asked scientists, professors and like who push evolution to describe where the Creator fits into the big picture. They tell me that up to this point there is nor need for what "nature" can do on its own. The Darwinian Evolution is a plague that is scorching America and turning otherwise bright young minds into mush!

We are not animals, we are the offspring of deity and as such have a royal heritage. Much is expected of us therefore in light of the Creators work to bring about his purpose.

The leader of Darwinian evolution, Dawkins, is the leading cause and spread of a complete Godless society. The evil lawyers, the ACLU, and the policy makers- the NCSE have spread their disease into the public eye and into politics. They want to remove God from everything, especially when discussing our real origins and the Intelligent Creator who formed us in his image- his direct lineal image.

So I ask- Are we to remove God from the very fabric of America? Is this what our founding Fathers, raised by God envisioned? No. Our country is founded upon the Creator and our duty as royal inheritors to promote and teach the truth and keep God in both government and in the publics eye.

I say- "Death to atheism"!

Anonymous,  9/10/2010 05:00:00 PM  

Anonymous --

That is one of the silliest posts of all time.

So, if one offers a scientific explanation for the world, one is an atheist.

Where have I heard that argument before?

Oh, let's see . . Galileo and his observations of Jupiter's moons. Copernicus and his theory that the earth circled the sun. Sounds like you are making the argument for why the inquisition was a good thing.

Science explains the world. It never purports to explain what role God plays. He may be the director behind the scenes. He may have set things in motion. He may intervene from time to time. But, those are questions for theologians, not the scientists.

If evolution is such a cancer, why did Dallin Oakes threaten to quit BYU when a group of folks tried to push to ban teaching it at BYU?

Why does BYU have one of the better evolutionary biology departments in the US? They were recently featured on the cover of one of the leading science magazines for their evolutionary research.

Why does BYU have leading palentologists who have discovered numerous dinosaurs and explaining the evolutionary development of numerous species?

Why does BYU have a significant geology department which continues to point out the ancient nature of the world?

Why does BYU use tithing money for all these activities?

Apparently the Board of Trustees (mostly General Authorities) don't have a problem supporting these activities. They have hired the key faculty. And, they know what they are doing. They provide the money (often tithing dollars).

As President Hinckley noted, science makes our lives better and it is not in direct clash with the gospel.

But, some hardliners -- like you -- continue to claim heresy. That mentality is the same that drove the persecution of Galileo and Copernicus. It was wrong then. It is wrong now.

Anonymous,  9/10/2010 05:09:00 PM  

Reading some of the posts here one can easily see why attacks on science are popular. Those who are pro-science are branded as "leftists" and "atheists." That makes nice bumper stickers, but not much sense. One wonders if those who say such things really have faith in an eternal God for whom nothing is impossible.

Jared* 9/10/2010 09:42:00 PM  

OK, we've had a range of responses here. It would help if those posting as "Anonymous" would distinguish themselves in some way.

Tom the Younger,

I'm not sure what to say. Do you deny the premise that the Right has embraced a lot of anti-science rhetoric, or do you think the anti-science is actually the True science?

Stan,

I'm not worried about the collapse of civilization yet. But how can humans prosper if verifiable facts become just another talking point in the service of an enemy ideology?

Anthony,

I'm not sure how your comment fits in on this subject, but thanks for stopping by. I have a post coming later that will touch on the issues you raise, though probably not to your satisfaction. But for now I would just point out that your comment contains an unstated premise that I find questionable--that prophets are well-informed on scientific matters.

Anonymous #1 (Rob?),

If you keep talking like that, you will only make atheism more attractive.

Anonymous #2 and Kristine N,

Good points. Thanks.

Tim 9/11/2010 05:55:00 AM  

"There is no part of Darwinian Evolution that allows for God."

Go to http://mormon.org/people/find/text/evolution/ to find statements by numerous members regarding their beliefs about evolution. All of these statements passed through a system of monitoring. The statements span the spectrum from disbelief in evolution to acceptance of evolution.

If there is no part of Darwinian Evolution that allows for God, the church would not allow statements supporting evolution to be published on the church's website.

Anonymous,  9/11/2010 04:45:00 PM  

I've always leaned toward the conservative end of the spectrum. But some of the hair-brained "right" nowadays makes me feel like cutting ties with the Republican Party.

That said, the left sure has a way of whining. These guys can't take the slightest lump on the head without turning it into a martyr-fest.

The problem as I see it is that religion has no say in the current political machine -- in terms of policy making -- whilst science (pure undiluted naturalism) has free reign. And so when religionists feel that their values are threatened by said machine they'll fight back like a hungry bulldog.

And so what we have is the right fighting for values however erroneous their understanding of the facts may be -- and science fighting for facts however damaging those facts may be to values regardless of the ever evolving nature of science.

Jack

S.Faux 9/11/2010 08:54:00 PM  

With just a tiny touch of figurative imagination, one can see a considerable correspondence between Genesis 1 and modern evolutionary science. So, I must wonder how astonished many will be after they die and they found out that God is a scientist.

Tom D 9/13/2010 06:50:00 PM  

Jared,

Your post seems to be an attempt to either pick a fight or generate some self-affirmation from the "Left".

Rather bombastic stuff can be found from people on both the "Left" and the "Right". On the whole I'd rather be governed by Republican than Democrats, but I believe (hope) that there are many good people in both parties.

I personally loath talk of The Left and The Right. Almost without fail people using those terms are demonizing others with straw men and characture. Such demonization is inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ (see 3 Nephi 11:29-30) and often marks people seeking for power and authority.

I don't necessarily characterize you as such a person (at least I hope you are not), but I also don't see this post as very useful.

What do you mean by "rejecting" science? Is there some formal science creed that has been rejected by these folks? Does a person have to completely agree with every tenant of this scientific creed to avoid being excommunicated from the community of right-thinking individuals? ...Oops, I'm getting kind of bombastic myself. Time to get back to work.

Jared* 9/13/2010 10:03:00 PM  

Tom the Younger,

The Left is not immune to problems with science. My perception is that the anti-vaccine and alt-med movements have a stronger base in the Left than the Right.

Having said that, the Right seems to have a more unified and outspoken ideological opposition to certain scientific conclusions right now. I think the examples in the editorial speak for themselves. If you would like more, try Chris Mooney's The Republican War on Science for background on what happened during the Bush administration.

I recognize the our elected leaders have many competing values to balance. Further, although science can inform policy decisions, those decisions ultimately must take into account extra-scientific values. But I get concerned when a sizable proportion of our leaders, candidates, or influential pundits take positions directly contrary to mainstream science and parade their ignorance or cynical skepticism as representing core American values.

Whichever party governs, I want it to do so having an honest relationship with reality.

Jared* 9/13/2010 10:04:00 PM  

BTW, just for clarification, I did not write the editorial. I simply quoted it.

J 9/14/2010 10:17:00 PM  

"Yet the public often buys into anti-science, anti-regulation agendas that are orchestrated by business interests and their sponsored think tanks and front groups."

I don't know if you have looked at it, but there is a great article in The New Yorker about the Koch brothers, and how they have orchestrated an attack on the issues you raise in your post. It's worth reading:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

Jared* 9/14/2010 11:08:00 PM  

Thanks, Josh. I've seen it talked about at various blogs, but I haven't read it yet. I'll have to take a look.

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP