I ran across this interesting post recently on Deltoid [1] concerning a list of (supposedly) 650 “scientists” who deny Global Warming is real (or at least, that it’s our fault in any way). Inhofe, of course, is Senator James Inhofe [2] of Oklahoma, champion of one of the brightest red states in the union.
As it turns out, the “list” is padded by many nonprofessionals and, as pointed out in the post, many names are repeated. Five of the names show up on the Discovery Institute’s list of Evolution Deniers.
One could probably, if enough digging were done, find lists of supposed scientists who would deny the validity of anything contemporary science has to offer. Certainly some people pick their favorite bit to trounce, but I do believe that they are only expressing themselves on that issue because it resonates in particular ways with them. In reality, we’re looking at people who distrust or avidly hate science.
Here’s a peculiarity I find fascinating. Take the anti-evolutionists, who for the most part base their rejection on religious grounds. “It didn’t happen that way because—” insert Biblical passage, statement of faith, dogmatic assertion, what have you. Here’s what I don’t get: why not look at what has been discovered (like many, many other religious people do) and say “Gee, look at that! Isn’t it amazing how god did that? That’s really clever. I guess god is even smarter than I thought!” and then revel in the derived fuzzy warmth of recognizing an aspect of “creation” that people hadn’t seen before but makes it all so much more amazing. You would think it would be a bonus. Instead, we get a reaction that goes something like “Genes and proteins are not mentioned in the Bible, therefore they have nothing to do with how we came to be! It says nothing in Scripture about dinosaurs or intermediate and transitional forms, therefore they have nothing to do with life as we have been told about by the word of god! Evolution is a lie because it is not consistent with the Word.”
I made a remark about this in a comment to another post:
My point is [concerning the use of icons and symbols] that some people—possibly very many if not most—can’t make the conceptual leap [from something they can see and touch to a “pure” idea]. It’s not that they refuse to embrace the larger idea, but that it is beyond them. Therefore, if you take away their symbols, they have nothing. This was the error of the iconoclasts in the Reformation, the Clunaics, the Puritans, all of them. The symbols came to be the only way many people *could* come to god, because they simply lacked the imaginative capacity to go beyond it. What did they do in place of pretty pictures and icons? Elevated the Bible to that position. Which brings us to the whole phenomenon of religious fundamentalism that cannot accept the idea that the text is not the thing and that interpretation is not blasphemy.
Science, among other things, is the tool of interpretation. But not just any interpretation. It’s focus is on fact, what something tells us about how matter is.
I don’t intend to rehearse here the nature of science and the world. I am interested in the psychology of those who refuse to accept its conclusions. Who fervantly wish there to be no truth in what science tells us about the universe, about the Earth, about ourselves.
Basically, they don’t want anything to be different.
Not really, Oh, it would be nice if crime would go down and they’d like it if more people go to church and why can’t those gay people over there stop touching each other Down There, but by and large the science haters like the idea of the world they have from the Bible. Why? Because it makes their lives meaningful. Or, conversely, because it gives them explanations for why things are unchangeable.
Because if things are actually changeable, then there’s no good reason for them to be as they are, and suddenly that feels uncomfortably close to responsibility.
And the primary thing that would require change first?
Themselves.
This isn’t something that frightens me. A pain and a bother, perhaps, an annoying necessity when it becomes apparent that who I am and how I think is lacking in certain utility or grace or just plain justice. But frightened? No.
(Back in my early post-adolescence, when I began to consciously realize that many of my attitudes about women—mostly derived from old movies, bad novels, and the back alley conversations among frustrated mysoginists—were fundamentally wrong, it made me angry that I’d been duped. It didn’t frighten me to start seeing women as Persons. It was hard to do and I went through a long period of clumsy “refitting” but it was, in retrospect, fun. I have, however, encountered many men my age who never accepted that reassessment. It was too difficult for them to admit first that they were wrong and second to admit that women couldn’t be repositories for their cliched frustrations and third that women could very well directly challenge whatever importance these men held as their “right.” It scared them to coinceive of a world where everything they’d been taught before the age of 18 was nonsense. They didn’t want to change.)
It is reasonable to ask, if you want me to change, what is it you’re asking me to change to. In other words, if you’re going to tear down my world view, what are you offering in its place? That’s not only reasonable, it’s fair, and it is part of the core of the debate with the science deniers. Every time a scientist answers a question with “I don’t know”, while this is an asepct of integrity based on good science, it is one more mark against science in the mind of the denier, because there is nothing being offered in place of the belief that is being challenged. So when evoilutionary biologists answer the question “How did life begin?” by saying “We have no idea”, while that is irrelevant to many of the specific questions (for which they do have answers) of evolution as we know it, it is like saying to those most threatened that “There is nothing to know, there is only abyss, and it is shapeless, formless, contentless.” Just at a guess, I’d say this is like saying to them “There is no heaven.” And while I certainly believe that to be the case, I can understand how that can be a terrible, wrenching idea to some people.
My sympathies.
But things do change. When the ancient Hebrews came out of the desert and starting warring on people who worshipped other gods, feeling they had a mandate to “throw down false idols” they must have taken a similar position. Things change and if an idea is wrong, it must go, whether it makes you feel good about it or not. They were uncompromising in their monotheism and a lot of blood was spilled over the question of what consistuted a “factual” interpretation of the world. It didn’t matter to them that they were tearing down whole world views and that this was calamitous to the losers. (You know, I sometimes wonder, given how often the Hebrews ended up enslaved by larger, more powerful nations, if perhaps there was a bit of policing going on. I mean, say you’re the king of the Babylonians and you get reports of this band of zealots who keep murdering tribes who may be worshipping Baal, or any other god not their own. You send emissaries to talk it over, but to no avail, these Hebrews intend to overthrow every religious system that disagrees with theirs. This is not good for trade, it’s lawlessness, and horribly destabilizing. These guys are like little kids who can’t be trusted out with the family car. So you seize them and bind them in servitude, just so they stop making so much trouble. Maybe, while they’re in custody, they’ll learn some tolerance. Never happens, of course, because you can’t force tolerance down someone’s throat, but you have to wonder…)
I have posited this before. The evolution deniers are frightened, whether they recognize the source of their fear or not. Evolution is scary because it means that we, homo sapiens sapiens, have no particular claim to special treatment at the hands of nature. In the vast landscape of biological history going back a couple billion years, our manifestation isn’t even a noticeable hash mark on the scale. We have found evidence of extinction after extinction, tremendously successful forms that one day became expendable. It means that we can be replaced. We’ve painted our self-portrait for several thousand years as the top of the food chain, the ultimate flower of Creation, but evolution comes along and says, well, no, not really. We have a big brain, but other than that, we’renot so special. We’re place holders along the continuum.
If science is right about Global Warming and evolution, then god ain’t gonna make everything all right.
Which brings me back to that big brain. Turns out that if we actually use it, we have a shot at extending our tenure. That we have the potential to be an even more successful form, and have a little longevity. We might even last as long as the dinosaurs, assuming an asteroid doesn’t smack into us.
Which means We have to do the work.
And that’s really a bother. A pain. A nuisance.
But there’s no point in denial.
Print this post [3]
[4]