From an interview with Shawn Otto, author of "Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America."
Towards the end of your book "Fool Me Twice," you claim that some American religious leaders are helping businesses "to purchase America's modern denial of science." How does that work in practice? Why would some American religious leaders want to do that?
OTTO: Evangelical religion has become big business, and through the gospel of prosperity preached at many suburban megachurches it’s becoming increasingly indistinguishable from so-called free market anti-tax, anti-regulation Friedrich Hayek radical economics. Which is shocking when you think about it.
For example, the “The Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship” and its associated “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming” are public letters from evangelical theologians. They express the opinion of the Cornwall Alliance, a coalition of evangelical clergy, theologians, and policy experts, including Charles Colson, James Dobson, Jacob Neusner, and R. C. Sproul.
Contrary to the overwhelming measurements of billions of datapoints collected by thousands of scientists working over a half a century that suggest the climate is warming and the warming is largely the result of human behavior, the Cornwall group’s position on climate change is:
“We deny . . . that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. . . There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming. . . .
We deny that carbon dioxide—-essential to all plant growth—-is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits. We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.”
(CONTINUED)
OTTO: The Cornwall Declaration’s position on sustainability is:
“Many are concerned that liberty, science, and technology are more a threat to the environment than a blessing to humanity and nature. . .
While some environmental concerns are well founded and serious, others are without foundation or greatly exaggerated. . .
Some unfounded or undue concerns include fears of destructive man-made global warming, overpopulation, and rampant species loss. . . . Public policies to combat exaggerated risks can dangerously delay or reverse the economic development necessary to improve not only human life but also human stewardship of the environment. . .
We aspire to a world in which the relationships between stewardship and private property are fully appreciated, allowing people’s natural incentive to care for their own property to reduce the need for collective ownership and control of resources and enterprises, and in which collective action, when deemed necessary, takes place at the most local level possible.”
This has little to nothing to do with Christian or Jewish religious values.
As to why these religious leaders would want to do this: as fundamentalists who value authoritarian ideology over the freedom of science, they have common cause with the anti-tax, anti-regulation policies of corporations, particularly big oil.
Former Republican political strategist Kevin Phillips argued in his 2006 book American Theocracy that the modern Republican Party has been making a steady march back to the old themes of the Deep South, where fundamentalist religion and oil coexist in a close-knit relationship. But as the knowledge from science is extended-- particularly about global environmental issues and their relationship with human behavior--the willful promulgation of ignorance from the pulpit, CEO ’s soapbox, or politician’s office is an increasingly immoral act. These people are blatant authoritarians.
Another question. The National Science Board (NSB) is a committee appointed by the President and the Senate to represent America's scientists and engineers. In 2010 the NSB deleted references to the Big Bang Theory and evolution from its biennial report. Those references had been included in the report for nearly twenty years. Why did the NSB delete them? How did that happen?
This is actually a really interesting story. The supposed evil doer, science philosopher John Bauer, was said to have “close ties to the Vatican,” implying that that was his motive for deleting the questions, and an article in Science magazine made that point.
Scientists were outraged. It seemed like more creeping authoritarianism. The White House had seen an earlier draft and the decision took them by surprise as well. What was Bauer up to? More George W Bush-style quashing of scientific reports that didn’t agree with his ideology?
As it turns out, Bauer was making a pretty reasonable decision. The two questions he suggested be removed asked audiences to rate these statements as true or false:
Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.
The universe began with a big explosion.
These two questions had appeared in the report since 1983--for nearly 30 years, actually. The NSB had already released their draft version with the responses, which showed that – shockingly - just 45 percent of Americans had answered “true” to the first question.
This was far lower than in, say, these countries:
Japan (78 percent)
Europe (70 percent)
China (69 percent), and
South Korea (64 percent)
Even worse, only 33 percent of Americans had answered “true” to the second question
about the big bang, compared with, for example,
67 percent in South Korea and
63 percent in Japan.
Wow! That’s horrible for America!
But Bauer noticed a 2004 survey, which showed something really interesting. 2004 was the year of Bush’s reelection. The president’s team was mobilizing evangelical churches. Karl Rove, himself an atheist, was walking through the White House whistling “Onward Christian Soldiers.” They were making the campaign into a religious war and creation fervor was running high.
So in this charged time, American adults were asked:
True or false: according to the theory of evolution, human beings as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.
And guess what? When asked this way, not 45 percent, but 74 percent of respondents knew the correct answer, a figure much more in line with the responses in other countries.
This suggests that it’s not that Americans are ignorant. The “science under siege” narrative that scientists use to gin up concern is not necessarily true.
Americans do seem to understand. They just sometimes disagree anyway. Because—and here’s the shocker—science is political.
Shawn Otto's blogs:
http://neorenaissance.org
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...