TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online
God, Science, and the Presidential Campaign
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: December 26, 2007
To the dismay of many, religion is becoming one of the defining issues of the presidential election campaign. From the scrutiny of Mike Huckabee's views about evolution and Mitt Romney's Mormonism on the Republican side, to unseemly e-mails questioning the religious upbringing of Barack Obama among Democrats, religious faith is once again front and center in electoral politics.
At the same time some are paying increased notice to religion in the campaign, others are lamenting that not enough attention is being paid to science.
In an essay published in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month, physicist Lawrence Krauss faulted presidential candidates for not discussing their scientific views more fully. According to Krauss, "almost all of the major challenges we will face as a nation in this new century have a scientific or technological basis," and the next president will need to act as an "educator in chief" on science issues.
Ironically, both the preoccupation with religion and the avoidance of science in the presidential campaign may have been fueled by the scientific community itself.
Increasingly, self-proclaimed defenders of science have tried to turn "science" into an ideological weapon to attack any questioning by religious believers of the "consensus view" of scientific elites on embryonic stem-cell research, global warming, Darwinian evolution, and similar issues.
This attempt to suppress dissenting views in discussions of science and public policy is fueled by the anti-religious orientation of the majority of America's elite scientists. Nearly 95 percent of biologists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, identify themselves as atheists or agnostics.
The anti-religious fervor of leading scientists was on clear display last year at a conference on science and religion at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. According to one participant quoted by the New York Times, "with a few notable exceptions, the viewpoints at the conference have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?"
Given the effort to exclude people of faith from public debates in the supposed name of science, is it any wonder that many in religious communities are pushing back?
The current state of affairs is tragic, because religious voices in the public square can serve as a valuable check on the prejudices and pretensions of scientific elites.
During the early decades of the 20th century, America's leading evolutionary biologists at institutions such as Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia promoted eugenics and forced sterilization. Traditionalist Catholics and evangelicals were among the handful of voices challenging the validity of the eugenics crusade at a time when scientific dissenters were scant.
Scientists have their blind spots just as much as any religious believer. If they genuinely want more discussion over science and public policy, they could start by inviting religious believers to join the conversation.
John G. West, Ph.D. is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute and author of "Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science."
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)
* Keep it clean
* Respect others
* Don't hate
* Don't use language you wouldn't use with your mom
* Use "Report Inappropriate Comments" link when necessary
* See Member Agreement for details
Reader Comments
Posted by ( madhatter ) on December 27, 2007 at 2:22 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
"If they genuinely want more discussion over science and public policy, they could start by inviting religious believers to join the conversation."
In fact, they've done just that. Many leading scientists are calling for a public presidential debate on science. Don't worry, Huckabee and Romney will be invited. I hope Dr. West will also be supporting the call at www.sciencedebate2008.com .
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( peterirons ) on December 28, 2007 at 6:28 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
It's revealing and ironic that John West defends the "questioning by religious believers of the 'consensus view' of scientific elites on embryonic stem-cell research, global warming, Darwinian evolution, and similar issues."
West is a fellow of the Discovery Institute, which defends the "intelligent design" version of Christian creationism, but loudly proclaims that ID makes no claims about the "designer's" identity, although a leading DI fellow, William Dembski, recently confessed that "the Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."
So it's revealing that West admits that his brand of "religious believers" (Biblical creationists) oppose the "consensus view" of scientists (including virtually all biologists) on evolution.
But it's also ironic, and misleading, for West to pit "religious believers" against scientists on stem-cell research, global warming, and evolution. Many, if not most, religious believers support the scientific "consensus" on these issues, including a growing number of Christian evangelicals (Jim Wallis and David Warren, for example, and the growing "Stewardship" movement. West speaks for a minority of the religious community on these issues.
It's time for those who find no conflict between religion and science to speak up.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Howie47 ) on December 29, 2007 at 2:47 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Many on both sides of this argument are unable to even consider the other sides position. This because of philosophical and religious attitudes held dogmatically by both sides. Only and open, on going debate, by science ,educators and anyone else, can properly address the questions. In many instances, that open debate has been closed down by the elitist scientific establishment. Most of the scientist don't seem to be, intellectually honest enough, and or are constrained by the, only materialistic view and by the elites that dominate the scientific establishment. The result is the "cultural war", that we now have!
Science and education needs to be overseen; as it has shown that it can and has been corrupted. But who shall stop those "mad scientist & educators", a mob of villagers with torches? I guess it has come to that!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( jjcassidy ) on January 1, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
peterirons, that is a pretty bad reading to Dembski's statement. In addition, the ACLU and Jones argued, in the Kitzmiller decision, that there is no definite conflict between faith and evolution because there are evolutionists with a Christian faith. Some of whom believe that God is ultimately behind evolution, however, that does not make evolution religious simply on a personal belief. Dembski was stating a personal belief; to argue that ID contains an inherent Christian definition because Dembski is above board with his worldview is really the kind of porous argument I expect from the anti-ID first-responders.
Dembski precedes that statement that he believes that God has a plan. Saying that it is a fact that the ID designer is the God of the Bible by that statement suggests that Dembski is more willing to accept that God as designer did not have a plan, than projecting that a God universally believed to have a plan is the designer. It's a bad reading and pulled from its context.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( EvolutionRules ) on January 19, 2008 at 1:43 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)