Although the science versus religion debate has raged for many hundreds of years in western history, it seems to me that the science deniers are becoming more organized and more vocal. They now have numerous sources and networks feeding the denial fire including faux news, Glen Beck, Rush L., and others. These sources are pipelines to the evangelicals who spew venom to their congregations in the form of revelations-related code words and numerous false “science findings.” This spewed venom, in their minds invalidates everything from the big bang, to biology, archeology, and just about anything else that ends in “-ology.” I recently had occasion to witness two such events in succession. Both of which surprised me, in one case due to the volume of responses and the other due to its venue.
A couple of weeks ago I wrote a Letter to the Editor of our local newspaper, circulation ~ 20,000, addressing the issue that many conservatives appear to be science deniers. I used the Republican presidential candidates as my case in point, with appropriate caveats. Our county generally votes Democratic, based mostly on the city, while the outlying rural areas remain staunch Republicans, and tea partiers. I have been writing one letter per month addressing both local and national progressive issues and all have been published. The response to this letter floored me. Two weeks after its publication the online forum comments continued while other letters were largely ignored. Responses were both pro and con, and have now exceeded 1,400. It seems to have brought out science supporters, general trolls, and large numbers of the righteous religious right. One rebuttal LTE criticized me for being a “Radical Materialist,” and yet another supported my points and compared the alternative to mysticism and witchcraft.
I made two points in my 200 word LTE
1. Against the back drop of the various Republican debates, I noted that…
Among the conservatives running for President, science rejection is like a shibboleth to get on stage. Even Huntsman and Romney, the only two who seem to accept any science, were “forced” to qualify their positions on climate change to diminish ridicule by deniers such as Rick Perry who denounced climate change science as a cult
or
"…a secular carbon cult led by false prophets…” (NYT. 9/17/2011).
Responses to this part of the letter were largely leveled at Al Gore who they contend deceived and falsified the data in order to make money and that climate change scientists also fake data so that they can get more research money from the government. Thus, global warming is a hoax designed to make money for the liberal deceivers. Most will recognize these as the various talking points proffered by Faux News, Rush, Beck, et al. No surprise there.
In the meantime, I read an interesting article by Charles J. Hanley - AP Special Correspondent, entitled: “The American `allergy' to global warming: Why?” In this article he traced the history of the global warming concept since it was first coined in a 1975 Science magazine article. At that time there were no political implications or connotations, just scientific interest and some concern. Since then, it has become a political football and is now one of several other defining issues differentiating Democrats from Republicans. For example, if you are anti-choice, you are likely also anti-global warming and a Republican. Vice versa for Democrats. Such extreme political differentiation based on the “belief or not," in the science of climate change appears unique, or nearly so, to America.
2. In this same LTE, I also wrote that many conservatives…
...reject the concept of evolution which they tend to equate only with Darwin (monkeys into men), while being embarrassingly ignorant that the entire science of biology is based on the fact that all living organisms (plants and animals) have genes that vary and evolve over time.
Concerning archeological evidence for human evolution, they argue tritely that the missing link has never been found or some other vacant or obscure reference to “it is only a theory” after all, which they equate a casual hypothesis.
Furthermore whatever the topic, they stray off into science versus religion and the origin of the universe. The right side held that: “… we do not know why the universe was created nor what caused the big bang, if there was one. So, maybe it did not happen. Without God there would be no science. Their take on the science of the existence of the universe is:
The only explanation [for why the universe exists] that…” scientists can come up with is ‘blind chance.’ And if you are comfortable believing "blind chance" created everything we know, than (sic) that is fine.”
So while we’ve heard many of these before, I remain surprised by the volume of comments which far exceeds anything I’ve seen in our newspaper. Within two weeks of the original letter’s publication, it and the two rebuttal letters had accumulated nearly 2,000 online comments. Something big is afoot and this is clearly part of a larger network of which we must be vigilant.
A concurrent, second event was equally disturbing.
During the same week, in the online version of Scientific American magazine, Michael Schermer” , a regular editorial writer, wrote a piece addressing: “What is Pseudoscience?” Here he laid out various criteria for what science is and how it would differ from “non-sciences” pretending to be science.
He also pointed out that sometimes the boundaries between science and pseudoscience are not clear. What surprised me was the very first comment to this online article was by a religious troll who apparently had been lurking at this blog site that is devoted exclusively to science issues and from a magazine that is an award winning, highly respectable popular science publication.
After a few knowledgeable appearing comments, the writer concluded that both evolution and creationism are pseudosciences but that:
“Evolution is based on guesses based on observations without enough information to justify the conclusion and creationism is based on a well documented historical record. “
The recent DKos post by mem from somerville , decrying the rampant anti-science in the US addressed a similar issue. This spreading anti-science phenomenon is making the US, as many have stated, “a laughing stock around the world.” Again today in Scientific American online, a writer blogged about a study that demonstrated that the largest group of global warming deniers in the US were white males. This blog provoked responses similar to what my LTE did, e.g. Al Gore made it all up.
I believe scientists and those knowledgeable about scientific methods, data, and issues, must get better organized and able to explain scientific findings and their implications to those who are as yet uncommitted. There are many “independents” now who just are not sure what or whom to believe. They are waiting for something or someone to persuade them and it’s likely that whatever that is will tip the scales of 2012. If we don’t provide the education and understanding, we are unwittingly turning the pulpit over to the fervent proselytizing evangelicals who will spread their illogical and fallacious points as devine truth, no matter how erroneous or vacuous their conclusions. There appears to be plenty of ears for them to reach. It seems to me that DKos has a cadre of active, progressive scientists and science literates, who cover a wide spectrum of academic areas, and who know many others of similar knowledge and conviction.
How do we get a counter movement that speaks to more than our own choir? It seems that petitions signed by Nobel laureates fall on deaf ears to most of the US population.
One way to counter these deniers is to write clear articles in local venues explaining scientific issues and their local, national, and global implications. Because “politics is local."