Do You Have Faith in “Settled Science?”

“Science in America” is an online video commentary with over 1 million views.  It features Neil deGrasse Tyson, an American astrophysicist, author, and science communicator who begins with an important question:  How did America rise up from a backwoods country to become one of the greatest nations the world has ever known?

Tyson’s answer?  SCIENCE!  “Science is a fundamental part of the country that we are.”

But Tyson warns his viewers that we are in danger of losing the scientific momentum behind America’s rise (emphasis mine):  

...in this, the 21st century, when it comes time to make decisions about science, it seems we have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not, what is reliable and what is not, what you should believe and what you should not believe.  And when you have people who don’t know much about science standing in denial of it and rising to power, that is a recipe for the complete dismantling of our informed democracy.

Tyson’s dire warning is followed by a sequence of clips which feature what he believes are “people who don’t know much about science.”  The sequence includes Vice President Mike Pence calling for the teaching of “evolution, not as fact, but as theory.” It continues with parents who are skeptical of vaccinations, voters who wish to ban GMO’s, and people who consider climate change as “unproven science.”  Tyson remembers the difficult times of the 1960’s and 1970’s but does not recall people ever “standing in denial of what science was.”

With all of the progress we have made in America, how can there still be “people who don’t know much about science standing in denial of it..?”  After all, according to Tyson,

One of the great things about science is that it is an entire exercise in finding what is true.  [First] a hypothesis, you test it, I get a result, a rival of mine double-checks it because they think I might be wrong.  They perform an even better experiment and they find out, hey, this experiment matches.  O my gosh, we’re onto something here!

So far so good for Tyson’s explanation of our so-called scientific method.  It begins with stating a testable hypothesis based on patterns observed in the natural world, and is followed by rigorous experimental testing in one laboratory, and then corroboration by other laboratories who are skeptical of the validity of the hypothesis.  If the hypothesis is consistently supported, Tyson says, “what arises is emergent truth.  Something better than we’ve ever come up with.”  While “emergent truth” may be an ambiguous term here, we can generally agree with his summary of the scientific method.

But then, Tyson’s narrative makes a wrong turn—one that exposes the contradiction in his logic.  He leaps to the conclusion that “emergent truth” becomes “established scientific emergent truth”—truth that is guaranteed to be true even if some people dare to deny it.  Note here that Tyson dismisses his “rival” who “double-checks” experimental outcomes because he is convinced beyond a doubt that he has reached “settled science.” 

At this point, all of us who value “good science” should be hearing loud sirens going off in our minds.  Here is Tyson’s dangerous conclusion (emphasis mine):

When you have an established scientific emergent truth, it is true whether or not you believe it.  And the sooner you understand that, the faster we can get on with the political conversation about how to solve the problems that face us.  So, once you understand that humans are warming the planet you can then have a political conversation about that…every minute one is in denial you are delaying the political solution that should have been established years ago.

In other words, the double-checker’s and deniers of Darwinian evolution should be silenced.  Those who question the safety of vaccinations and GMO foods, or who doubt human-caused climate change must be prevented and eliminated from positions of influence.  Unfortunately, it is only a small step from “settled science” to a “tyranny of science?”  The latter assumes that science alone can and should guide the political agenda without consideration of moral and ethical claims.   An article by Brendan O’Neill in The Guardian suggests that Americans of all political persuasions ought to be aware of the danger of going down the path to a science dominated by politics, especially without morality and ethics.

Supposedly, only “people who don’t know much about science” are questioners of “settled science.”  But then, some of Tyson’s viewers, and readers here, may remember that scientific progress and discovery was greatly influenced by people who, in their time, were regarded as not knowing much about science—people like Galileo, Pythagoras (Earth not flat), Pasteur (living cells do not spontaneously originate from nonliving matter), Einstein (relativity), and Barbara McClintock (ridiculed until her “jumping genes” hypothesis was validated).  Tyrannical science has no place for those who question long-held theories and “think outside the box.”  [Note: Regarding “thinking beyond the box,” see “Halting the Demise of “Liberal Education.”]

Two “experiments” from the former Soviet Union underscore the danger of the “tyranny of science.”  The first, called the Lysenko Affair, occurred during the 1930’s and 1940’s.  Russian scientist, Trofim Lysenko (1898-1976), succeeded in duping the communist government under Joseph Stalin into believing in his experimental results based on the false notion of Lamarckian genetics.   Lysenko believed that, with repeated harsh environmental treatments, temperate zone crop varieties would produce offspring that “inherit acquired characteristics” –i.e. “toughen up to thrive in frigid Siberia.  Under the tyranny of the Soviet regime, Lysenko’s critics were silenced, Lysenkoism flourished, and Soviet progress in genetics was stunted for decades.

The second “experiment” to illustrate the danger of “settled science” came a few decades after Lysenko, and resulted from communist tyranny over science.  This was the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in northern Ukraine on April 26, 1986.  A nuclear power plant suffered a ruptured reactor core releasing large amounts deadly nuclear radiation.  The disaster was popularized by this year’s release of an HBO movie, Chernobyl.  I have not watched this 6-episode series, but reviews have outlined several of the political and scientific factors that caused Chernobyl to be a much worse disaster than it should have been.

First, the communist party propaganda machine suppressed communication and stifled expression from concerned scientists.   Consequently, like the Lysenko Affair decades earlier, highly politicized science became stunted and fell behind that of the western world. 

Second, the Chernobyl incident was made much worse because of inadequate expertise and availability of equipment to handle an otherwise preventable disaster.  The cloak of secrecy and isolation from the West that typified Russian communism made it difficult for the Soviets to admit their need of basic assistance and technology to deal with something that their science and technology couldn’t handle. 

The severity of the danger was not realized until much damage was done to humans, animals, and ecosystems.  Unfortunately, the ineptness of Soviet science magnified the Chernobyl disaster which shouldn’t have occurred under a reign of “good science.”  Just as bad, Chernobyl has become a “poster child” to elicit fear of nuclear energy production that still haunts our world and discourages nuclear energy production as a viable option.

The horrific effects of the Chernobyl disaster highlighted once again the disastrous result of “good science” becoming a prisoner to a godless political philosophy.  “Settled science” becomes “stale science” when people in power adopt Neil deGrasse Tyson’s philosophy that a scientific finding is true whether or not you believe it.  And the sooner you understand that, the faster we can get on with the political conversation about how to solve the problems that face us. 

Not so fast Dr. Tyson.  Shouldn't you let “your rivals” keep double-checking the results?  The “informed democracy” that you value depends on “good science.”  It is stunted by “settled science.”  If you don’t believe it, just consider the lessons of Lysenko and Chernobyl.  And, moms and dads, commit to being scientifically literate and make sure your sons and daughters follow your example.

Imagination That Contradicts the Reality of Creation

Imagine a world in which hunger is vanquished by crops that don’t depend on soil, water, or fertilizer, or pesticides to thrive. 

        – Vice President Joseph Biden, Commencement address, Cypress Bay High School in Florida

Nothing wrong with graduates being challenged to imagine what they can accomplish.  Creative imagination is sometimes a spark in the development of hypotheses and the design of experiments.  However, imagination that sets one adrift from reality can also interfere with good science.  For example, disciplined reasoning based on the existing body of scientific theory is required to interpret data and to establish probable “cause and effect.” 

Vice President Biden at Cypress Bay H.S., Weston, FL*

Back to Biden’s imaginary crops that “don’t depend on soil, water, or fertilizer.”  Plants can grow in soilless culture (hydroponics) but not without water, nutrients, and carbon dioxide (a vital gas to plants).   I cannot imagine how plants can grow without material constituents necessary to build the cellular and molecular structures of the plant body.  Can you?

When bureaucratic agenda overreaches into science for political gain, even uglier things can happen.   For example, evidence leaked from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, Norwich, England, in 2009, suggested that efforts were made to intimidate or discredit opposing scientists, suppress exchange of climate data, and suppress publications that question the assumptions of climate change models.  Thus, legitimate scientific attempts to understand the effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions on global temperatures was hi-jacked by the political and economic agenda scientific data to the contrary was ignored (see Oikonomia, November 30, 2009).

Here’s another case in point.  In the 1940’s and 50’s, the Russian scientist, Trofim Lysenko (1898-1976), duped the communist leadership into believing that he could produce crops that would thrive in Siberia by repeated exposure to cold treatments to make them more vigorous.  His theory was based on the false theory of “inheritance of acquired characteristics” promoted by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829).  Although his proposals were not grounded in good science at the time, they fit the communist philosophy of the rise of the working class through persistent struggle to overcome harsh conditions.  Lysenko succeeded in swaying the communist leadership so much so that he became president of the Agricultural Academy.  By the time Lysenco’s false science was discovered and discredited, Russian agriculture had already been set back for decades.

Today, as we see more government intervention into housing, health insurance, and alternative energies causing failed outcomes, maybe Mr. Biden believes that a trip down imaginary lane will lift the spirits of the American electorate.  But there is little hope for such amazing crops without a magic wand to override the scientific principles of biology, chemistry, and genetics that define reality in the created order.

The “created order” turns out to be a common theme among all of the scientific, political, economic, and religious issues we face today.   Does your reality and mine take into consideration the objective reality as revealed in Scripture and confirmed in creation?  Both biological systems like crop plants and whole economic systems that value and distribute goods and services are irreducibly complex.  These systems are, as the oft quoted phrase suggests, “not more complex than we think, they are more complex than we can think.”

Our challenge as stewards of creation and citizens of government is to learn to recognize and respect the realities of both the spiritual and physical worlds around us.  Crops will never grow from nothing; they will always require some kind of medium and constituents from which to grow.  Instead of imagining plants that grow from nothing, perhaps we should imagine ways in which the enhance the function of our agro-economic systems which already deliver a tremendous variety of fruits, vegetables, and meats to our dinner tables for a small fraction of the cost of living compared with many parts of the world.

More amazing is that our agro-economic systems provide relatively cheap nutritious food in spite of increasing government regulations, many of which are being added to protect us from eating too much; or to ensure that our children get a nutritious breakfast.  Humm, is it government’s role to protect us from our bad decisions and provide nutritious meals for children?  I thought parents were responsible to make good decisions themselves and to provide nutritious meals.  I thought parents were also responsible to provide wholesome training of their children in mind, body, and spirit, with the support of church and community.

Perhaps, Mr. Vice President, our graduates should be challenged to consider (not imagine) that there is a loving God in Heaven Who has given us His Word to instruct us in right living.   And to recognize the created order as explained in the Bible in which man was created to serve and preserve creation for God’s glory and for the flourishing of humankind and all of creation.   That marriage was ordained between one man and one woman who would be faithful to each other; and, that as God would permit, become the parents of children who would be theirs for a time to train up to use their gifts and abilities to be productive members of family, church, community, and civic organizations.  That, as professionals, they would conduct themselves and their businesses virtuously toward their clients and customers.   They would be committed to prospering financially but would refuse the temptation toward greed, or to take short-cuts that cause degradation of creation.   Instead, they share the fruit of their labor in support of worthy causes.   They recognize that there will always be the poor and those who need lifting up; but that, as they are committed to doing their part of the” lifting”,  the number of poor and needy will always be small.   That government would then be smaller because individuals would behave ethically, break fewer laws, and seek to build stronger families, churches, and communities.   

Imagine that, Vice President Biden.

Photo:   CNSNews.com,  June 4, 2012

Climate Change Debate Demands “Good Science”

In today’s world, science and technology influence our lives at every turn. Science has not only shaped our worldview; it literally shapes our view of the world. Digital technology awakens us in the morning, provides our coffee, delivers the news from anywhere in the world, helps us to plan our day, and converse around the world by wireless communication. The clothes we wear, the food we eat, and the vehicles we drive all shape our lives as fruits of science.

But science is not value-free. Science is a human endeavor and the fruits it yields to society depend upon the values of the culture. For a culture to prosper, it must value education and the pursuit of knowledge, freedom of expression, respect for ones neighbor, and reverence for all creatures and the physical order. Each of these values must be undergirded by an ethic that seeks after scientific truth – i.e. ‘What is true?’ or, “What best conforms to physical reality?”– and wisdom – i.e. ‘What is right?’, or ‘right application of knowledge in a world that recognizes the human capacity to do evil.’

Right application of scientific knowledge demands freedom of expression so that all who wish to participate may do so by offering rigorous critique and additional experimentation. The so-called “scientific method” has demonstrated itself to be very effective in identifying correct judgements about the natural world when scientists function as a community in a professional, ethical, and objective manner. It is particularly important that these elements be present where scientific authority is being used to influence public policy. Where one or more of these elements are missing, science risks being hijacked by a relative few who seek to use its fruits for political and economic gain.

For example, many global climate scientists utilize climate models that point to global warming to advocate both national and international policy changes aimed at reducing production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Such policies are designed to reduce human consumption of fossil fuels and discourage other practices that are believed to cause global warming. However, some are concerned that such policy changes will provide little relief to either planet Earth or to the poor while at the same time shifting the balance of power to central governing bodies at the national and international level.

Given the immense impact of climate change-driven public policy decisions, it is particularly disturbing that the above ingredients necessary for a “healthy science community” may be lacking. It is not my purpose here to debate whether global warming is occurring or the magnitude of the contribution of human activities to climate change. However, I am concerned about the growing evidence that scientific openness and objectivity are being suppressed by political agendas both within government and within the scientific community.

For example, the recent hacking of e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, Norwich, England, suggests efforts to intimidate or discredit opposing scientists (or see Wall Street Journal, April 12, 2006), suppress exchange of climate data, and suppress publications that question the assumptions of climate change models. Dr. Tim Ball, Canadian climatologist, expresses his concern in a recent YouTube interview. Remarkably, little attention is being given to the implication of the e-mail exposures.

Wouldn’t a healthy scientific community be well served if it were to openly take stock of the revealing e-mails and to own up to any private doubts or attempts to suppress conflicting or controversial data? Isn’t this an opportunity to test the expertise, professional ethics and motivations of climate scientists on both sides of the issue? Certainly, the lessons of the “Lysenko Affair” in the Soviet Union under Stalin testify of how science, hijacked by political interests, both stifled scientific progress and caused starvation and death of millions . Good science may not only provide answers to the “climate debate” but contribute to a more certain and sustained rationale for establishing lifestyles that foster human stewardship of the Earth.