FreThink

Forty years ago Americans were fascinated by science.

Science gave us Moon landings, microwave ovens and airbags. Science promised to end the drudgery in our lives, feed the hungry, extend our lifespans and cure our illnesses. Science was our great hope for the future.

In the last ten years or so we’ve seen our fascination with science replaced with disdain for intellectualism (see Anti-intellectualism is destroying America-FreThink.com and Anti-intellectualism-WayoftheMind.org)  and a return to fundamental theism. Under the influence of the ignorant and poorly informed, Americans have been encouraged to view science with scorn if not outright hostility. Science has been pitted against religious belief in what some portray as a winner-takes-all cage match. Where once Christians appreciated the contributions of science to our society they now consider science to be an effort to discredit their god. Science is being cast as the anti-Christ, the harbinger of the apocolypse. Theists claim that science is essentially atheistic and that atheists worship science instead of worshiping god. By attempting to conflate atheism with science they can dismiss the value of science with a clear conscience. Since scientists have failed to uncover any physical, conclusive and irrefutable evidence in support of a god, scientists must be anti-theism in the minds of the religious.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. While the majority of those in the hard sciences identify themselves as atheists there are scientists who self-identify as theists.

A study has shown atheism in the west to be particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the 20th century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed “disbelief or doubt in the existence of God” (defined as a personal God which interacts directly with human beings). The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage of 60.7%; this number is 93% among the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%. (Source-Wikipedia)

This would indicate that science is not an exclusively atheistic field of study nor does it require an atheistic attitude to be a scientist.

Since theists can’t hope to do away with science they hope to pollute it with theistic mythology and ill-disguised attempts to turn theism into science with claims of an Intelligent Designer. Fundamental theists insist that science proceed from their bias alone. They insist that science adopt their conclusion (god did it) then make the evidence support that conclusion. They appear to be oblivious to the dishonesty inherent in this effort.

Theists insist that evolution be taught as one theory among several and that ID is just as valid a theory as evolution. They make no effort to do the testing and research that may or may not substantiate their claims. Instead they insist we accept their claims just because they say we must.

As a result science has become diluted with nonsense and hampered by having to defend itself against poorly constructed and completely baseless claims of bias and atheism. Many of the complaints that theists lodge against scienceaccuse science of being materialistic. This betrays a lack of understanding of the
nature of science as well as ignorance of what “materialism” means.

But there are those in the sciences who are devoting themselves to making science popular again. They are doing their best to dispel the rumors, counter the lies and fight the fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) being spread by science’s detractors.

Chris Mooney, author of ‘Unscientific America,’ talks about the significance of Pluto’s demotion from planet, the belief that vaccines are linked to autism, and the role played by religion.

Mooney, author of the 2005 bestseller “The Republican War on Science,” and his coauthor Sheril Kirshenbaum, a marine scientist at Duke University, seek to explain how Americans have come to minimize science in a time when, they assert, we will need it most — as global warming, advances in genetics and the possibility of large-scale engineering of the Earth’s climate loom in our future.

Pointing to what they see as a deep-seated streak of anti-intellectualism in this country, the authors write: “Americans built the bomb, reached the moon, decoded the genome, and created the Internet. And yet today this country is also home to a populace that, to an alarming extent, ignores scientific advances or outright rejects scientific principles.”

While not excusing the half of American adults who don’t know that the Earth orbits the sun once per year, Mooney and Kirshenbaum say that scientists hold the key to a better public understanding of science.

Religion is the reason they think they can’t accept evolution. That’s because they are told by their pastors from the pulpit, all across the country, that evolution is an assault on their identity, their moral universe and their ability to raise children who get taught this. So there’s been an attempt to create a hermetically sealed environment in the conservative Christian community that keeps this stuff out. And that’s a huge problem.

What’s preventing people from embracing science? We know it is religion, but do we really know why people are creationists? When I look at how many scientists approach the evolution issue, I don’t see that understanding.

If I read ScienceBlogs, what I see are endless eloquent refutations of the creationists based on science. It’s been done to death. Obviously, that doesn’t convince anybody. And that’s because people who don’t believe in evolution are not driven by scientific considerations. So that’s not how you should be trying to reach them

Clearly the Web is going to be part of the answer because there is no avoiding it. But I don’t think science-centered blogs or Twitter are going to be the way to reach beyond the people you are already reaching.

So you look at what kind of things have reached beyond. My best example is YouTube videos that go viral and get millions of views. There’s a couple of science videos that have really caught on. The Large Hadron Rap is the best. It’s rapping about the Large Hadron Collider. They go in the tube and they’re rapping about the fundamental nature of matter and what they’re going to discover, but it’s just cool. They are being nerds, but they are being fun nerds. It really was a smash hit.

Scientists are going to have to have a culture change. They will have to realize that it is important to train people in more than research. And the necessity of that is born out of the numbers game. Only a small number of people in graduate school today are going to be researchers because there aren’t enough positions. It will be a realignment of priorities for universities, granting agencies, and scientific societies.

I think a lot of executives at media companies need to have a mind-set change and stop thinking science coverage is death for ratings. That’s not necessarily so. The Discovery Channel is not doing that badly. Clearly, you can cover science well. The media needs to get over the “I’m-a-pissed-off-middle-school-student-and-science-isn’t-for-me” kind of mind set. Science coverage should be high-standard, it should be entertaining, it shouldn’t make them lose money. (Source-L.A. Times)

I wish them well. They face organized and well-financed opposition.

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

What we really need is a Mr. Wizard for the 21st century.We need someone who can explain science and its findings in a way that is both entertaining and educational. We need to expose youngsters to the full history of the sciences as well as what the future could hold for a science-based society.

At the same time we need scientists like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins to continue to speak out and expose the efforts of theists to compromise science and get around the scientific method. Atheism and science warrant separate defenses as they are not necessarily yoked. Just as not all scientists are atheists, not all atheists follow science. Both approaches to understanding our natural world may frequently come to similar conclusions, but that does not imply either correlation or causation.

We owe it to future generations to preserve our national dependence on and confidence in science.

Related articles by Zemanta

• “Unscientific America” Comes To DC (cenblog.org)
• How to Make Science Sexier (time.com)
• FDL Book Salon Welcomes Chris Mooney, Unscientific America (firedoglake.com)
• Book Review: Unscientific America (dailykos.com)