Skip to main content

Science Class Frustrations


We watched An Inconvenient Truth in our Environmental Science lab this week, and took class today to discuss the documentary. This was the second time I had seen it, and I was expecting some people to scoff at the ideas presented. Still, I was disturbed in during the discussion, because some people simply did not want to believe him. Some said that they didn't believe the science because it traced earth's climate back to 600,000 years ago, and these students didn't believe the earth was that old. One student, as if thinking of the idea for the first time, said, "Well, we've had ice ages, so it only makes sense that we have warming periods as well. I wanted to shake him and say, "Did you even watch the fucking movie?!"

And here's what I've been thinking since that class today: Groups with agendas (political, religious, etc.) tend to approach scientific findings with a buffet mindset. If a finding disagrees with their stomach, they simply pass it by. When something seems tasty, they snatch it up. That's not how science works, folks.

Perhaps what most upsets me is when people hear of a scientific study - a cursory description - and immediately dismiss it. "Well, there's no way they can tell that." Somebody said something similar in class regarding the measurement of temperatures from the past by analyzing air bubbles trapped in ice core samples. I've seen this reaction to many scientific studies. It's as if they're thinking, "I'm a pretty smart Joe, but I don't understand this. Therefore, they must be making it up." Or, "Silly scientists. They overlook the most obvious things."

Listen people. These scientists have usually had more education than your entire family put together. Who the hell do you think you are picking apart their studies when you don't have even possess a fraction of their knowledge in their field?

"But Deric, who will criticize his arguments if not us?"

Oh, you're right... If only there were some kind of forum where other scientists could critique their peers... like if they could publish it in some kind of journal... golly gee, it's too bad no such thing exists...

But no. People are too lazy to read comments by actual scientists. They'd rather read popular science or Christianity Today to get their science updates. More often, they just rely of their own gut reactions to gauge the veracity of any scientific pronouncement.

Mind you, this isn't only directed at "global warming doesn't exist and if it does, we aren't responsible" crowd, but also toward the Greenpeace crowd. Both censor scientific findings that they don't like.

There, I've vented. Can we all grow up now and take science seriously?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Will Enter Heaven?

Check out this quote I found online: "[C]onsider this fact: fewer than 20% of people actually think they are going to hell. And yet, in answering that question, Jesus says in Matthew 7 that FEW pass through the gate that leads to eternal life. 80% doesn't sound like few to me... do some of us have the wrong idea?" There are a number of problems with this quote. First of all, you it is assuming that "few" refers to the current ratio of professing Christians to non-Christians. What's to say that Jesus isn't referring to the entire population of all the earth over all time? In that case, it's entirely plausible that 80% of people now are really Christians, as long as there are still few total Christians when all is said and done. Maybe it applies only to the people in the crowd listening to Jesus. Or, it could refer to something else entirely (as I believe). Jesus was talking to a specific people living in a specific time. We cannot decontextualize his ...

Some Thoughts on Religion and Science

The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails. - H L Mencken In Galileo, Bertolt Brecht underlines the tension between religious authority and scientific inquiry. This struggle has existed for nearly the entirety of Christianity. Christians today like to pretend that the hands of contemporary religion are clean from the blood of scientific martyrs. Despite their delusions, religions like Christianity are doing just as much damage today as they did in the time of Copernicus and Galileo. Rather than doubting the veracity of the heliocentric model of falling bodies, today's religious autocrats handle scientific research which they feel is of much more moral weight. Studies in stem cells and bioengineering have been halted because the faithful feel as if man is tampering with and de...

Sunny California

I'm settled into a church family's house here in Valencia, and boy is it great. I like listening to my pastor talk about theology. He is also a wonderful counselor, and has been helping me work with some of my personal problems (yes, I know it's hard to believe, but I do have problems). Here is his blog site, if anybody is interested: The Craw . Also, here is the website of my church, along with its blog: Saint Andrew's Community Church , The Chronicles of Saint Andrews . In the meantime, I have been reading The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Mathison, who also wrote Given For You . Both of these books have had an enourmous impact on me, and I strongly encourage all of you to get out and read The Shape of Sola Scriptura , particularly if you've ever struggled with the authority of the Bible, and how it squares away with church tradition. The thesis is that most evangelicals treat the issue of the Bible and tradition wrongly, particularly those in radically reformed chu...