Labeling Religion as Science

On NPR's Here and Now today was an interview with Chris Mooney, who is writing a book about conservatives and science. His recent article, "Research and Destroy," examines attempts by the religious right to apply a "veneer" of science to religious and moral beliefs, and use the result to influence public policy. They may fail in the end, but in the short term, they've been distressingly effective. The problem is that their science lacks academic rigor and peer review, and is usually blatantly contradicted by empirical research. Despite this, conservative politicians believe these "fringe" results, and act upon them, creating a ripple effect on the public at large.

Mooney also has a blog at www.chriscmooney.com, called The Intersection. In one of his postings, The Non-Thinking Man's President, he lists a series of open questions to / about George W. Bush from the Los Angeles Times. The rhetorical questions are designed to point out that the President tends to develop a superficial knowledge of a topic, form an opinion based on his belief system, and discard any evidence to the contrary that may later come his way. His value of being "unwavering" is another word for "inflexible," and betrays a profound lack of critical thinking on his part.

Reading through blogs like The Intersection,  Making Light, Who Cares What I Think?, Aurora Walking Vacation, and Whatever, listening to NPR and the candidates, and encountering religious right attitudes in the media and in person, I find it hard to evade the concept that proponents of conservative politics are essentially anti-intellectual, distrusting critical thinking on the grounds that it's somehow secular and immoral. This theory strikes me as unlikely in toto - it's hard to think of George Will and William F Buckley as anti-intellectual - but there does seem to be a problem here. If people confine themselves only to media outlets that support their point of view, they never have to confront and re-examine their attitudes or their knowledge of the facts.

On the other hand, it's true that I'm no better about looking at the other side of the debate than some religious conservatives are. I'm therefore grateful to Mooney for his article. It gives me a better idea about what's been happening in one part of the world of pseudoscience. It's not the only pseudoscience out there - uncritical cable shows about the paranormal come to mind - but it may be the most dangerous.

Karen

*****

Later:

Sara made an interesting point in her comment below about evolution being a theory rather than proven fact. I'm no scientist, but I think I partly disagree, not with the premise, but the conclusion drawn.

Technically, pretty much all the models that scientists develop to explain the world are theories rather than facts. A conceptual framework is put forth that seems to fit the evidence. Experiments are carried out, and data examined. When the results come in, the theory is vindicated, tweaked, or thrown out, depending on how well the theory conforms to the evidence.

Short of time travel or a million year experiment, evolution cannot be proven to the satisfaction of all, particularly to those who don't want to believe it. However, there is a great deal of credible evidence for it based on genetics, the fossil record, and even the selective breeding of animals that humans have been doing for thousands of years. The evidence for creationism or intelligent design is not remotely as strong, and does not appear to fit that facts. It therefore does not fit the "smell test" for legitimate science. Because of this, I think that it is foolish to claim that a theory that attributes the entire fossil record to Noah's flood is more likely than natural selection.

On the other hand, there is nothing in the theory of evolution that precludes it being a mechanism used by God for his own ends. Like most of religion, this can neither be proven nor disproven. For some people, the intellectual rigor of empiricism demands the rejection of such a possibility, but even that is, in its way, an article of faith. For those of us who fall in the middle, between Biblical literalism and confirmed atheism, Darwin and Jesus need not be considered incompatible. In that, Sara is right.

Of course, if we did have time travel, we'd learn that an exploding alien spaceship caused the start of organic life on Earth and that the Cybermen accidentally caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. According to Doctor Who, anyway!  ;)

K.