Science Deniers

A label often attached to those who doubt either Darwinism or man-made global warming is “science-denier”. If one questions either the assumptions or the conclusions of either of those narratives, one is assumed to be anti-science, as if disagreeing with a conclusion was the same as losing all contact with reality. But I have to say in the dispute about a number of issues, I have a strong suspicion it is not really about the science. Why?

Because I have a pretty direct example of agendas driving conclusions in spite of evidence coming from the other side of the political and religious spectrum.

Back in the late 70s, I became aware of the battle in this country over abortion. I was influenced by the Francis Schaeffer/C. Everett Koop collaboration and soon got immersed in literature from the pro-life perspective, including Bernard Nathanson’s seminal “Aborting America” and Jerome Lejeune’s stunning LIFE magazine pictorial.

I vividly remember how the arguments were framed before the advent of ultrasound. Opposition to abortion was framed as a “religious” and primarily a “Catholic” issue. That is, the only reason to oppose abortion, the public was told, was a purely religious belief that a soul is formed at conception, a belief advocated by a patriarchal institution that also opposed contraception and generally thought of sex as evil. If science was ever broached, we were told the “conceptus” was a mere “blob of tissue”, no much more significant than a blood clot.

It is at this particular point in history that “science” took a leap forward and the pro-life movement sought to rebut the “religious only” charge with newfound data. LeJeune’s stunning pictures and corresponding text made it difficult to refer to the unborn fetus as a mere mass of cells. And the advent of ultrasound technology gave us a real-time view of living active babies in the womb. Pro-life literature consistently cited medical facts: The stirrings of a first heartbeat within three weeks after conception, measurable brain activity by the seventh week, all organs accounted for and functioning before the end of the first trimester. Images of tiny beings sucking a thumb, yawning, stretching, even crying became the primary argument – decidedly empirical and completely without need of religiously based support.

And how did the other side respond? By allowing the scientific facts to speak? By following where the evidence led? Not at all. Instead, the other side fell to metaphysical and legal justifications while refusing to even discuss the science. The argument shifted. Now we were told that no one really knows when the soul enters the body or when “consciousness” or self-awareness might be relevant to the issue. We were told that “personhood” is a legal term that applied only to beings who had achieved a particular but undefined level of awareness. In other words, the science didn’t matter.

I've watched this issue for decades and I cannot recall a single media article, televised news report or major publication that even broached the subject of when life begins from a medical and scientific perspective. All the focus shifted to “personhood”if the fetus was considered at all, and the attention focused almost entirely on particular issues surrounding the rights of women.

In the early eighties I participated in a radio debate with both an abortionist and a representative of NOW. The abortionist was an elder in a local Presbyterian church. I was naïve enough to think that citing relevant medical facts about fetal development would cause him to pull out sophisticated scientific arguments to rebut my layman’s claims. I wondered if he would trounce me with scientific detail that was beyond my expertise. He instead, without missing a beat, simply changed the subject and started to cite scripture to justify the non-person status of the unborn and the ambiguities of Old Testament law on the subject. I was prepared for a few of those arguments and rebutted them, but I found myself quite disillusioned after that debate. I was young and naïve in thinking that political debates are won on evidence and argument. Spin, deception and outright lies are normative. Evidence was irrelevant.

Here is the point: In thirty plus years of watching this issue I have never seen any serious attempt by the other side to dispute the medical evidence that shows that life begins at conception. The science does not matter. Their position is completely disconnected from the science. In fact, it has to be.

So, shifting subjects, when I hear that conservatives who doubt that the evidence for manmade climate change is beyond question labeled as “science deniers”, I immediately turn a skeptical ear to that claim. All the conservatives I’ve heard speak on that topic offer arguments based on counter evidence, or question whether any programs at the government level will affect any measurable change. Reality is, a lot of money can be made if “Green” technology is favored over existing technologies. Environmental advocates are not immune from political ideologies. And frankly, watching Al Gore’s presidential campaign, I know that Al Gore is not an honest man. Specific counter arguments that cite contrary data from reputable science sources or show flaws in methodology and even manipulation of data are often simply dismissed or ignored. (For examples, see here) It is easier to ridicule conservatives with labels than it is to engage in honest debate.

And when ID advocates or creationists question the conclusions or assumptions of the science academy, I am very much aware that there is a long path between the assumptions, the collection, sorting and filtering of data, the interpretation of that data, and the final conclusion. I am aware of the charge that ID advocates don’t make predictions or get published in peer reviewed journals (when in fact they do they do) . I am also quite aware of counter evidence ignored rather than engaged with. I am aware of false arguments (like Haekel’s embryos) that still persist decades after being exposed as frauds and no serious attempt by the science academy to remove them from use in school textbooks. I am aware of the phony charge that one who believes in the possibility of supernatural causation cannot also believe in the orderliness of natural law. I am aware of the charge that theists espouse views based on beliefs and bias and not on evidence, but somehow the materialists are completely objective.

Which is why I posted on the thesis that the scientific method was developed in part because human beings were considered to be fallen and capable of both error and bias in the worldview shaped by the reformation. Human beings are often quite irrational – when it serves their purpose. This does not mean reason has no place – it only means other considerations overrule reason quite regularly.

And the one bias materialist and naturalists refuse to acknowledge is the bias of naturalism itself. Until that hurdle is overcome, the science won’t matter.