Last week, the New York Times published an opinion piece by Karl W. Giberson and Randall J. Stephens — a physics professor and a history professor at Eastern Nazarene College — that takes evangelicals to task for being anti-intellectual, anti-reason, and anti-science. Their evidence:
Evangelicals doubt man-made global warming.
Evangelicals believe that gays can “pray away” their homosexuality.
Evangelicals believe the earth is only thousands of years old and that men lived alongside dinosaurs.
Evangelicals oppose same-sex marriage.
Advertisement
It is worth analyzing these charges, given how often they are made.
With regard to man-made global warming, the charge that all skeptics are anti-science is despicable and indeed, anti-science. The number of prominent scientists who dissent, including the scientist widely considered the dean of climate science in America, Richard Lindzen of MIT, is so long that there are entire websites that feature their names and credentials. You can find two of them here and here.
The authors of the Times op-ed piece, like virtually every other left-wing intellectual who comments on the subject, dismiss all skepticism regarding the Al Gore hypothesis that humanity is headed toward a worldwide apocalypse because of heat resulting from man-made carbon emissions. This is a reflection on these intellectuals’ politics, not on their commitment to science.
With regard to “praying away” homosexuality, if it is indeed the normative evangelical position that all homosexuals, with the right faith, can cease being sexually attracted to the same sex — that position is wrong. But to the best of my knowledge, that is not the normative evangelical position; Evangelicals no more believe that than they believe that prayer alone will end any undesired physical condition.
At the same time, the opposite position — the position of nearly the entire liberal intellectual world, that everyone’s sexual orientation is fixed — is also driven by ideology rather than by science. Society has a huge influence on how people act out their sexuality, including the sex with whom they choose to be sexual. Human sexuality — especially that of the human female — is far more elastic than the intellectual community admits. And the widespread liberal belief that, all things being equal, it makes no difference if a child is raised by a mother and father or by two fathers or two mothers is hardly rational. On the issue of homosexuality, the intellectual Left is just as driven by ideology as are evangelicals.
With regard to those evangelicals — and for that matter those ultra-orthodox Jews — who believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and either that there were no dinosaurs or that they lived alongside human beings, my reaction has always been: So what? I believe that the earth is many million years old, that “six days” is meant as six periods of time (the sun wasn’t even created until the Third Day, so how do you quantify a “day” before then?), and dinosaurs preexisted man by millions of years. But what real-life problem is caused by people who believe otherwise? Does it affect any of their important behaviors in life? Do they not take their children to doctors? Do they oppose medical research? Do they reject the discoveries of scientists that affect our lives? No. Not at all. Are there no evangelical or ultra-orthodox Jewish doctors? Of course there are, and apparently they are very comfortable learning and practicing science. Compared to the many irrational beliefs of secular-left intellectuals — good and evil exist even though there is no God, male and female are interchangeable, international institutions are the hope of mankind — evangelical irrational beliefs are utterly benign.
Scientific metholodology was formulated Francis Bacon who was a Christian. Flamsteed, Newton, and Halley were Christians. Probablity and miracles are mutually exculsive magisterium. Science should mind its own business if it can. Scientific certainty is as long lasting as the time it took to find the first subatomic particle that exceeded the speed of light. If the Logic of Einstein is subject to the obsolence by astonishing discoveries in a linear accelerator then what about Global Warming? Applied Science in the here and now is quite valid for the time being. Extrapolation of data to manipulate the past is another. Statistics merely reinforce prejudices and science is relegated to the realm of fanaticism. Newton and Leibnitz argued over who first formulated calculus.
It demonstrated they too could be petty and childish.
Unfortunately, once evangelicals express the belief that the Earth is only thousands of years old, instead of the billions proven by any number of scientific studies, any other pragmatic views they hold are rendered null and void. Regardless of how benign such a view is, it is fundamentally anti-science and diminishes those individual's point of view on other scientific issues.
"Unfortunately, once evangelicals express the belief that the Earth is only thousands of years old, instead of the billions proven by any number of scientific studies, any other pragmatic views they hold are rendered null and void. Regardless of how benign such a view is, it is fundamentally anti-science and diminishes those individual's point of view on other scientific issues."
I'd like to set aside any questions about the age of the earth which are already "proven by any number of scientific studies," and focus on basic logic:
Why, being wrong on one point of scientific fact, are they therefore wrong on all points of scientific fact? What logic makes a person, wrong in one statement, wrong on all? Once having put forth a theory that is (again, for the sake of argument) conclusively proven wrong, what principle of science consigns all other "pragmatic views" from that source to irrelevance, without seriously testing or thinking about them?
Of course, there are no principles of either science or logic which do this. Principles of fundamentalist and dogmatic religion, however, do seek to discredit heretics (where rooting out or obliterating them altogether isn't feasible) because of their dangerous ideas, to keep them from spreading.
Because of his actual heresy, the heretic is also wrong about everything else, and not worth listening to. Not because he's actually wrong, but because his soul is lost due to his not accepting or reciting the required creed, not observing the prescribed rituals, not accepting the authority of the "priesthood," or whatever the sticking point happens to be.
Perhaps my comment was unclear. I was not suggesting that evangelicals who believe the Earth is only thousands of years old instead of billions are actually wrong on other scientific issues, but they could be perceived as such by others. I was suggesting that they could (and are) be labeled as crackpots or zealots, instead of individuals of deep faith. I suggest it would be much better for a politician who is also an evangelical to sidestep this issue.
You mistake the tool for the finished product. One of the great things about science is that it rarely absolutely forcloses options... and discounting all of what one has to say on the basis of one disagreed point? There may be instances where that's practically necessary, but in this specific case its simply poisoning the well. I was unaware that argumentum ad hominem was a cherished component of reason.
On the website linked to by Prager, this is Lindzen's quote:
"We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.
"[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed.
"It is generally agreed that doubling CO2 alone will cause about 1 °C warming due to the fact that it acts as a ‘blanket.’ Model projections of greater warming absolutely depend on positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds that will add to the ‘blanket’ – reducing the net cooling of the climate system. ... This, however, is not the case for the actual climate system where the sensitivity is about 0.5 °C for a doubling of CO2.
"Motivated by the observed relation between cloudiness (above the trade wind boundary layer) and high humidity, cloud data for the eastern part of the western Pacific from the Japanese Geostationary Meteorological Satellite-5 (which provides high spatial and temporal resolution) have been analyzed, and it has been found that the area of cirrus cloud coverage normalized by a measure of the area of cumulus coverage decreases about 22% per degree Celsius increase in the surface temperature of the cloudy region. ... The calculations show that such a change in the Tropics could lead to a negative feedback in the global climate ... The response to a doubling of CO2, which in the absence of feedbacks is expected to be about 1.2°C, would be reduced to between 0.57° and 0.83°C (depending on y) due to the iris effect."
Do not blind yourselves to the truth. I just laid out the facts, here for you to read and evaluate.
This, Mike, is what will be lumped in as "denialism" by your side. As will any analysis that arrives at a conclusion that doesn't justify making CO2 emissions reduction the "central organizing principle of civiliation."
A fraction of a degree Celsius of warming is tolerable. Therefore those whose conclusion is that this degree of warming is the most likely result of human CO2 emissions, cannot be tolerated by those whose power stands to be increased by a more significant threat.
Incidentally, the sensitivity of the climate to atmospheric CO2 concentrations is logarithmic, not linear. That is, it takes twice as much additional CO2 to get you the second half-degree of warming, as it takes you to get the first half-degree. That is to say, the apocalyptic runaway greenhouse effects Al Gore plays unscientific scare-tactics with, are a physical impossibility.
Your point being? If you have read Lindzen consistently, one of the points you would understand is that the IPCC climate models are too simple. He said, if you just look at CO2, there should be more warming. Therefore, there are other factors offsetting the increase in temperature. Sun activity, cloud cover other chemical reactions in fact there are too many variables to build into the models so only some are included. The result is wildly innacurate predictions. Many AGW "deniers" don't say there is no warming, but that the models are too flawed to base policy on their predictions. Also, that the human element is a very small part of the warming, and that the draconian measures favored by the IPCC crowd would cause great harm and provide little or no relief.
Mike actually believes he has said something profound.
Gee Mike, why do you believe we should wreck the world's economy in order to prevent a further warming of 0.5C over the next century.
The previous 0.5C warming has caused no harm and there is evidence that it has been beneficial? Why should we believe that the next 0.5C won't also be beneficial.
There is also proof that enhanced CO2 is very good for all plants. They grow bigger, stronger, and use less water.
The evidence is in. CO2 is good. We need more of it, not less.
Another in a long line of “liberals are intolerant and amoral” essays from Mr. Praeger. Which misses the point entirely.
1) You and anyone else who chooses to have every right to believe the Earth was created 10,000 years ago by God. But that isn’t science, it’s faith, and I won’t tolerate it in my son’s science class. I send him to Sunday school to learn his faith. And my church – the Catholic Church – has acknowledged evolutionary science. That your church doesn’t is fine with me. Keep it there.
2) Until I have to go to a church to get the marriage certificate recognized by the government, marriage is a civil issue and NOT a religious one. My church doesn’t give me a marriage allowance on my 1040 – the government does.
3) I cannot for the life of me imagine any person – given the amount of venom our society still directs at them – willfully choosing to be homosexual. And much research – research that evangelicals choose to completely disregard – has demonstrated that to be true. Just as much research has shown global warming to be true.
But conservatives are not interested in research which challenges long-held beliefs which have nothing to support them other than being long-held.
Rather, they’re interested in foisting their doctrines on the rest of us.
They're interested in convincing my son that the Earth was created in literally seven days, that homosexuals are evil and shouldn’t be tolerated, and that he shouldn’t listen to scientists because they're biased.
I will never teach him those things. That you want to force your beliefs on me and my child shows intolerance and lack of respect – which is what you claim is wrong with liberals.
Actually, I'd prefer that you not force your faith in "science" (as defined by your parameters) on others. You are free to believe whatever you choose, and so am I. You are actually offended that not everyone believes as you do. If you, as an angry liberal, take steps to ensure the silence of anyone who disagrees with you, are you not "foisting" your opinion on others?
Fine; your faith is in science, as you define it. You are free to have that faith, as Christians and Jews and Muslims are free to have theirs. But not all scientists agree, any more than all religions agree, on the issues you have cited as settled facts.
To believe that a behavior is self-destructive and to say so is not "hate." It could be considered compassion.
I believe that Pope John Paul II stated his personal belief (to which I also subscribe) that God worked things out through evolution. This is not a doctrine of the church (for instance, one could believe that God created the world in 6 days and put fossils in the ground for some reason and no one would say that they are a heretic). Anyway, I hope you weren't presenting that as some sort of thing that Catholics MUST believe.
Marriage has been a religious issue for 1000s of years and exists in situations independent of the state. The Catholic church, your church, in fact recognizes the sacramental nature that marriage can have.
Although it's possible that some people ar genetically predisposed, there is PLENTY of psychological science (remember science?) showing environmental factors at work. Things like a domineering mother, peer rejection, poor body image, a poor relationship with the father have all been proven to be such factors.
"I cannot for the life of me imagine any person – given the amount of venom our society still directs at them – willfully choosing to be homosexual."
I cannot for the life of me imagine any man, given the way the legal system is stacked against him, willfully choosing to sleep with a woman who is not his wife. And yet many do.
Until the neurologists conclusively prove that there is no free will whatsoever, the liberal conflation of "predisposed" with "predetermined" is unscientific. We may not choose what we find ourselves drawn to do, but we still have some degree of choice in what we *do*.
I'm actually getting annoyed with the "I can't imagine anyone who..." argument. It shows a severe lack of imagination--let's see: I can think of, people who want to shock their staid parents, people who like attention, people who want to feel a part of an oppressed group to have that sense of fighting for their liberation... There's such a support system out there that it actually seems like a good bet if you're lonely and depressed and want to be comforted. You don't get so many welcoming arms if you just say, "I'm sad and lonely and don't feel like I fit in."
I'm not saying it's the case in all, most, or even any cases... but it's not exactly hard to imagine, and I don't know why people pretend it is. People do it all the time with other issues. By this argument, no one would ever choose to be a Jew, no one would ever choose to be a goth, no one would ever choose to be a Mormon, no one would ever choose to be anything but a tepid sort of soft-left go-along type.
1. Nowhere does Mr. Prager suggest that we "force" you or your family to accept the Evangelical view that the Earth was created 10,000 years ago. In fact, he admits that he himself does not subscribe to this view. Evangelicals, unlike the progressive Left, is not trying to force this view on you or your family, but rather that schools teach Evolution for what it actually is: a theory. It's a compelling theory and one that many (including me) believe has merit, but it is NOT a proven fact that can be reproduced in a lab.* Very important distinction. Everybody accepted that the speed of light was as fast as any particle could travel until we could actually put that theory to the test in a lab environment and discovered otherwise.
Since no one is demanding that you accept the Evangelical view on the Earth's' age, your first point is a non-sequitur.
2. Wow, that's exactly backward. Marriage as an institution predates every government in existence today. It has existed in the earliest human civilizations on the planet. While our government may regulate its application for reasons of taxation and maintaining a peaceful society, marriage as a concept exists outside of the government. Regardless of what you may think, the government does not marry you. The priest, minister, rabbi, Gaia-witch, [insert religious leader here] marries you.** The government simply records the event and asks if you want to file jointly on your next tax return (heck you said it yourself). Marriage is a reflection of what society believes it to be, and societies across the world for thousands of years have understood it to be the union of a man and a woman. To paraphrase Hayek, tradition is the wisdom of the dead passed down to us; we ignore that wisdom at our peril.
3. Really? You can't imagine anyone choosing to be gay? Not even in most of the Western world where homosexuality is not just accepted but celebrated? Quick, name any mainstream sit-com running today that doesn't include a smart, successful gay character. How about American Idol? Adam Levine and Clay Aiken are pretty open about their sexuality and are congratulated for it. How many movies feature a positive portrayal of a gay character? How many books? And don't give me hate crimes. The average homosexual has a greater chance of being struck by lightning than being killed for being gay.
My point here is not complain about gay people getting a lot of press, though I do think it's way overblown considering the fact that probably less than 5% of the American population is homosexual. Nor am I arguing that a gay person can simply cross his arms and nod his head and make himself straight (and neither does Mr. Prager). However, I believe that homosexuality is mix between genetics and environment, a boring old nature-nurture argument. There is certainly a genetic component, but I believe that a motivated person can counteract this predisposition given the right support structure.
Finally, there's this statement:
"But conservatives are not interested in research which challenges long-held beliefs which have nothing to support them other than being long-held."
Pot. Kettle. Black. Putting aside the fact that there is research to back conservative views as well, let's run through "a few long-held beliefs" of the Left, shall we? Communism is still all the rage among the elite Left in spite of its appalling death toll. Unions have long outlived their usefulness and are now a cancer on our manufacturing and government sectors, yet liberals refuse to see it. Entitlements have crippled the western world (just as conservatives like Sowell predicted) and yet we have a president and congress hell-bent on moving our country towards a European social democracy in utter defiance of the facts staring them in the face.
* By the way, you should study up on your Catechism, because this is the view of the Church as well.
** Yes, some people choose to get hitched by a justice of the peace. Still, I would argue that they recognize the event as something more significant than getting their driver's license renewed. They write their own vows, pledge their love, and invite all their friends and family (most of the time). In short, they know they have found something special and have chosen to commit to one another for life. In the absence of a commitment driven by religious ideals of faith and devotion, they choose to simply promise to each other to be true. Regardless, I doubt any of them would agree to the statement "the goverment married us".
Yours is a mighty thin Catholicism if you hold marriage--a holy sacrament--subordinate to a civil statute. You have it exactly backwards. Governments come and go. Laws and regulations change with shows of hands. Not so God's truths.
Given that the degree of disapproval among the general populace towards homosexuality has significantly decreased in recent decades, does it not seem odd that the percentage of the populace that has chosen to openly identify themselves as homosexual (forget about "be" since we're talking societal impact, which does not occur without societal awareness) has risen significantly in direct correlation to the reduced prejudice. Surely this contradicts your assumption about universally innate sexual preferences?
Or are you arguing that it's something in the water that makes people "gay"?
Evangelicals doubt man-made global warming.
