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 ...

An Experiment In Honesty

This last week has been emotionally unsettling, and since I've been unoccupied all day (I'm at my dad's place until I leave for San Francisco), I'm feeling it in a strong sort of way. To sort it all out, I thought the best thing to do would be to start writing about it, so here it goes. This summer has been very influential in my development - I suspect more influential than I can really understand at present. I had to leave many new-found friends and watch as friends left me. The people at Yellowstone helped me to see what I want socially. There were few Christians (besides the anomalous Campus Crusaders) who were more than nominally religious (and I mean religious in the way that we see American Evangelicals or Catholics - there were many 'mystics'). I could talk honestly about questions of death or a god without fearing that evangelical backlash I'd get at Sterling College or The Master's College. In fact, I just enjoyed being able to hang out with an...

On the Biblical Mandate to Respect Authority

The SC choir chaplain brought up a passage in 1 Peter at the beginning of this week regarding submission to authority. It led to interesting conversation, and I'd like to reiterate part of that conversation here. 1) It is important to remember that the early churches who passed around these letters had a very practical use for them. The early church could have easily been stomped out had the early Christians been too anti-government. True, the church was persecuted. True, the church did get into trouble with the government. However, remember that the persecution happened for short bursts of time (historically speaking) and only in isolated areas. It was by no means universal persecution. Additionally, when you look at other early Christian documents, you see more injunctions to work with the rulers. And why not? The early church needed all the support it could get, while not compromising, of course. If they were all outspoken government radicals, they would not have lasted long. 2)...