Consistent Conservation -- Part 1: Following the Right Recipe

Those who can bake delicious cakes, cookies, and breads realize that their batter or dough must have “consistency.” That is, it must have the proper thickness, firmness, or stickiness.  Consistency depends on the right ingredients, the amounts of each, the order in which they are each added, the manner and duration of stirring, and other factors.  Proper consistency means there is an agreement or harmony of parts or features to one another resulting in an integrated whole.    

Imagine the frustration we would incur if we hastily began to bake a cake before getting the right recipe and gathering all of the proper utensils and ingredients.  Good baking depends on planning, timing, and careful attention to the recipe.  The same goes for the planning and administration of economic or social policy.  Policy aimed at shifting from a fossil fuel-driven economy to a green- or renewable energy-driven economy is producing disruption and frustration on a much larger scale than a poorly executed baking effort. 

The rush to renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, geothermal) is driven largely by an attempt to reduce or eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels (e.g. coal, oil, natural gas) that are thought to cause climate change.  The widespread economic and political impacts of this initiative in America and worldwide are causing considerable debate. 

This article is Part 1 in a series on what we shall call “Consistent Conservation.”  Here, we examine the validity of arguments and motivations for using renewable energy.  Many well-meaning efforts are based on subjective notions instead of objective truth about our role as humans on planet Earth.  We will emphasize that truly “consistent conservation,” like a well- executed cake-baking effort is only possible when the “ingredients” are in place and the “recipe” of policy and practice are grounded in the Christian environmental stewardship ethic.

Renewable Energy Considerations
Although many of us are switching to a more conserving lifestyle, it is important that we have the right motivations for conserving.  Two disclaimers are in order. 

First, no one should disparage those who favor “green energy” based on a deeply held conservation or stewardship ethic (Read more HERE.)  Readers who have purchased an electric car, solar collectors, or geothermal heating-cooling systems; or, who have joined more traditional cultures in erecting a windmill near their home are lowering their energy demand and cost.  In addition, partial dependence on renewable energy invites us to be more energy-conscious and to pursue additional energy-conserving strategies.

Second, we do not oppose policies for expanding the use of green, renewable energy in our economy.  However, we do oppose drastic efforts to curb the use of fossil fuels based on false claims that climate change is the most dangerous existential threat we face. [See “Climate Change in Context – 2. Rightly Weighing Our Risks.” Click HERE to read.]  Indeed, a more imminent threat to human life and well-being than climate change may come from

reckless anti-fossil fuel policies.  For example, agricultural production of food depends on fossil fuels to produce synthetic fertilizer.  It follows that restriction of synthetic fertilizer use by farmers will disrupt agricultural production leading to food shortages and political unrest.  Tragically, this scenario is already playing out in Sri Lanka  [Click HERE.]and the Netherlands [Click HERE.]

“ESG” Incentives
What kind of logic is so influential as to cause a whole nation to voluntarily choke off agricultural chemicals to its farmers?  Increasingly, the answer is ESG which stands for Environmental, Social, Governance.  Companies like ESG Enterprise offer financial advice to investors in capital markets who may wish to promote their own ethical values with respect to “sustaining the environment” or promoting “social justice.”  The ESG approach incentivizes corporations and whole nations to adopt policies that generate a good “ESG score.”  Individuals, corporations, or whole nations can earn a high "ESG score" by aligning policies and investments with the liberal, progressive philosophy of what is deemed good for the Earth, and economically and socially equitable.  In turn, they are rewarded in ways that improve their marketing competitiveness and enhance their appeal to ESG-conscious investors.

The ESG approach is largely responsible for what is happening to agriculture in Sri Lanka and the Netherlands.  Both nations have attempted to earn high ESG scores, partly by restricting supplies of fertilizers to their farmers which have led to the food shortages and political unrest noted above.  Yet, in spite of scientific evidence that climate change is only partly due to human practices, policies driven by efforts to curb gradual climate change are posing immediate threats of national food shortage and civil unrest.  Another mismatch of policy with reality is evident in the current push for electric cars without adequate charging capacity (Click on graphic below to enlarge).

The ESG and “Green New Deal” approach may be well intended.  However, unless our good intentions are based on “good science” and sound governmental and economic policies they can cause immediate and acute threats.  Unfortunately, instead of realizing and learning from bad outcomes when fertilizers are withheld, many want to charge ahead.  Two personal considerations are worthy of our attention.

First, some of us who have retirement funds invested in capital markets that support ESG may want to consider whether we are wise to support an unethical environmental agenda.  Second, we ought to check our motives in making purchases in response to “green initiatives.”  For example, before purchasing an electric car we should be aware of the current shortages of charging capacity and the environmental impact of extracting lithium and others raw materials needed to make the batteries.  Rushing full steam down a bad path is often encouraged by our biased media which hides news contrary to liberal progressive ideology. 

Shallow-Rooted Motives
Bias in journalism and science reporting have persuaded many to become “me-too conservationists.”  This group, generally speaking, includes those who deliberately or unknowingly give lip service to a shallow environmentalism.  Me-too conservationists are easily allured by a desire to show others that they have “bought green” or have acquired a high ESG score.  Their motivation may be for social acceptance or for political or economic gain.  Everyone wants to be socially accepted; but even the best intentions are no excuse for an ignorance that underestimates the complexities of energy conservation. 

Wise natural resource conservation requires an environmental ethic rooted in something deeper than a “me-too motivation” that follows the latest fad or charismatic leader; or, that responds in fear of the latest apocalyptic prediction.  Instead, we must realize that each person thinks and makes choices according to a system of morality and ethics that is rooted in their worldview.  Therefore, if we are to behave properly toward the environment and influence others to follow, we must understand the nature and influence of our worldview.  [NOTE:  A worldview is a framework or lens through which we can understand and relate to the world around us.  For more on “Worldview,” see “Reflections at Age Seventy-five;” click HERE].

A person’s morality may be either subjective, based on his or her view of how one ought to live; or, objective and based on an external set of absolutes.   According to a survey of 2,000 adult Americans by the American Worldview Inventory 2021, over half (54%) embrace the postmodern idea that all truth is subjective and there are no moral absolutes.  However, those who deny the existence of moral absolutes and choose to live by their own subjective code of morality and ethics must grant every other person the same privilege.  A culture based on “I’m okay, you’re okay” sounds good in theory.  However, in reality this subjectivity leads us down a path of selfishness, misunderstanding, inconsistency, confusion, division, frustration, and even despair and suicide.

Consistency in Conservation
Into this world of selfishness, confusion, and conflict, God has revealed through His Word in the Scriptures exactly who we are and what our purpose is.  He created us to be His stewards who can only find fulfillment and joy when we serve under His authority rather than being masters of our own lives.  This means surrendering our subjective notions of how to govern our lives; and instead, yielding to the objective revelation of God’s Word.  Instead of falling for the satanic deception as Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3), God offers us, through the free gift of salvation in Christ, the wisdom and opportunity to make choices that are right and pleasing to Him. 

The choice is ours of either “consistent conservation” or a path into “woke environmentalism.”  Me-too environmentalists who go so far as to live in deliberate rebellion against God’s authority can become susceptible to the popular woke ideology based on critical theory.  Woke philosophy and critical theory are based on a false historical narrative and a false view of humankind.   Wokeism thrives on a distorted view of both God’s natural revelation (His creation) and God’s special revelation (inspired Scriptures).  The result is a spiritually darkened view of humankind that divides us from our neighbor and dislocates us from our position as submissive stewards under God who calls us to exercise dominion over creation.  In so doing, wokeism destroys the only objective justification for our responsibility as servant caretakers of the Earth.  [Read more in “Stewards without a Master” by clicking HERE.]                                                                                        

On the other hand, consistent conservation is the only objective path to conserving resources while at the same time respecting the needs of our neighbors both near and around the world.  As we have explained in detail earlier, the word conservation is derived from the Latin, con- (with) + servitium (service).  Both conservation and stewardship carry the notion of serving with or for the benefit of another as opposed to serving oneself.  [For more detail, click HERE.]

We Are Consistent… in Christ
God never asks us to follow His principles without showing us how to follow.  He did that by sending His Son, Jesus Christ, who “served with” His Father as a perfect steward… Who, being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.  For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2: 8-11).

Whereas “conservation” is perfected when we follow Christ’s example of “serving with” our Father, we must also consider conservation that is “consistent.”  Consistent conservation is the practice of the Christian stewardship ethic which is grounded in the wisdom of Christ.  In Colossians 1: 15-17, Apostle Paul exalts Jesus Christ as being …the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by Him were all things created… by Him, and for Him:  And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist (or, "hold together").

The child’s Bible song, “He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands” is the elementary expression of the truth that Christ “existed before anything else, and He holds all creation together (Colossians 1: 17 NLT).   Who can read this proclamation without exalting Christ as Creator, Savior and Lord?  It is not by our own intelligence or any other trait which we can boast, but by the mercy of God who calls us to yield our lives to His rightful authority.  Only by following the example of Christ can we expect to live a life of consistency and practice consistent conservation of the resources God grants to our care as stewards.  

But, instead of submitting to the authority of Christ and seeing how all things "hold together" in Him, many are refusing Christ’s rule and are "coming apart." See our expanded definition of consistent conservation in text box on the right.

Everywhere we look we see the results of energy and economic policies that lack “consistency."  Like hasty bakers who have not followed the recipe, our leaders follow policies that produce worthless “batter” because it lacks consistency.  Well-intended policies that proport to “save the planet” from climate change are driven by a supposed existential threat which is not supported by significant global temperature change.  Nevertheless, energy policies are being implemented by “Green Energy” proponents at the expense of inflation and recession which are bring great hardship on the most vulnerable among us.  [See “Climate Change in Context – 2. Rightly Weighing Our Risks.”  Click HERE.]

In Part 2 of “Consistent Conservation,” we highlight two important thought leaders who represent two very different views of the role and future prospects for humankind on planet Earth:  Paul Ehrlich and Norman Borlaug.  We contemplate which of these two influencers of our current environmental policy direction exercised “consistent conservation.”  Click HERE to read Part 2.

Comments and Questions:
How have current energy and economic policies affected your decisions and lifestyle?  Are there ways you exercise “consistent conservation” or plan to do so?  As always, we welcome your responses using the “Comments” link below to express your thoughts, questions, and suggestions.  You may also write privately to silviusj@gmail.com

Bring a Speedy End to the Pandemic Shutdown

Some baby-boomers like me remember a stressful part of our childhood:  having to get a penicillin shot, or waiting in line for “the needle” for vaccinations.  I’m not sure which was worse, the anticipation or the needle prick itself.  But afterwards, my fear and pain were eased by a warm feeling that I was protected from becoming ill.  Today, the results affirm the success of antibiotics and vaccines.  The anxiety and pain were a small price for a good outcome.

But what if, in order to protect us and our nation from a mortal enemy, we were required to surrender freedoms that we hold dear?  Such a request or demand would have a much more pervasive affect on our lives than the requirement to stand in line for a vaccination? 

Our COVID-19 Conundrum – Looking Back
As you know, my “what if” became a reality on March 15 of this year—the day that 65 Coronavirus deaths were reported in the US.  On that date, Dr. Anthony Fauci and the White House Task Force instituted a 14-day “national shutdown” with “social distancing” and limitations on our coming and going.  The purpose was to “flatten the curve” of daily hospitalizations and viral infections so that hospitals would not be driven beyond capacity.  But 14 days of shutdown was gradually extended to 1 month.  By that time, many voices in the medical and epidemiological fields were questioning the wisdom of this policy.

With all due regard for any loss of life due to the Coronavirus, many of us asked whether the national shutdown was actually saving lives.  Or, was it simply flattening the curve of infections and hospitalizations and delaying inevitable exposures and infections with uncertain future consequences?   By mid-April it had caused thousands of small businesses to close, millions of people to be unemployed, delays in scheduling of medical procedures, disruption of church worship and other human social interactions, and resultant mental stresses and suicides due to social isolation. 

Because of my own personal skepticism, I began to research the science and statistics related to the COVID-19 pandemic and shutdown.  At the same time, I wanted to assess my own attitude and faith in response to the pandemic threat on my life and family.  About this time (April 17), after one month of national shutdown, the US was approaching 40,000 deaths almost half of which originated in New York state.  I wrote a blog article entitled “Considerations for Our COVID-19 Conundrum” which outlines how I was personally responding to the pandemic and shutdown.  [I believe this article still contains valuable recommendations for readers who want to maintain their “health” in body, mind, and spirit.]

One week later (April 24), I had posted another article on COVID-19, entitled  “COVID-19 Policies &  Outcomes: Learning Online.”  Here, I cited experts who were concerned that the indirect effects of social distancing and the economic shutdown were having more devastating long-term effects than the COVID-19 virus itself.  The primary goal of “flattening the curve” had been reached in most parts of the US.  So, the rationale for remaining locked down shifted to a seemingly trumped up fear based on questionable predictive models and a philosophy that we ought to remain shut down until a vaccination is developed.  Fortunately, in spite of these dire warnings, several state governors began to aggressively follow the phase-in plan offered by President Trump and the White House task force. 

It’s Time to End the Shutdown
During the next two weeks, it became more and more obvious to those who followed objective media sources that the economic, social, and even medical costs of prolonged partial lockdown were exceeding the benefits in saving of lives.  Everywhere, hospital capacity and equipment to treat COVID-19 patients were all much in excess of demand.  As I wrote in “COVID-19 Policy Ignores ‘Good Science’,” “some experts such as Dr. Dolores Cahill called the lockdown policy “anti-scientific” and “anti-nature” because it has ignored the importance of the human immune system and how we need to beef up our immunity through good nutrition and vitamins.”  [Dr. Cahill’s informed logic is featured in a video interview accessible in my article, “COVID-19 Policy Ignores ‘Good Science’.”]

Today, opposition to the lockdown from professionals is being joined by an increasing chorus of Americans who want to get back to work.  Dr. Scott Atlas, MD. and senior fellow and experienced policymaker of the Hoover Institute, argues that there is no reason not to move more quickly to reopen our society with proper precautions for the elderly and other at-risk individuals.  In his op ed article published May 18, in The Hill, Dr. Atlas wrote,

The total lockdown may have been justified at the start of this pandemic, but it must now end — smartly, without irrational, unnecessary requirements contrary to medical science, common sense and logic. The goal of the strict isolation was accomplished in the overwhelming majority of places. We have direct data on risk and extensive experience, individually and as a nation, with managing it, even as new cases arise. We know that gradually relaxing total isolation will lead to more infections, but that’s acceptable, given that we know whom to protect and this disease is not harmful to the vast majority of infected people.

What Do COVID-19 Data-by-State Suggest?
Yesterday, I devoted many hours to pouring over data from multiple sources.  I chose 15 states that represent 62% of the US population but which are responsible for approximately 85% of the COVID-19 deaths in the US to date (see Table).  The data by state is ranked according to “% Recovery” from lowest (top) to highest—i.e. the percentage of individuals who were “Reported Cases” who recovered and were not tallied in “Deaths.”  Note that Michigan currently has the lowest percent recovery at 90.5%.  All other states range above this percentage and reach as high as 98.3% recovery in Tennessee.

The 7 states that make up the upper-half of the table account for just over half (51%) of the total reported COVID-19 cases in the US to date but account for 67% of the total US deaths.   It is also noteworthy that nearly all of the 7 states in the upper half of the table have governors who have been slower in opening up their state than most of the 8 states in the lower half.  This suggests that governors who have been more aggressive in opening their state have not been unwise.  Both % recovery and mortality rates are lower in these more aggressive states.  More comments on my Data Table will come below as they relate to several claims by Dr. Atlas.

Supportive Data But Poor Communication
Dr. Atlas argues that neither policymakers nor the public have received several key messages that are both critical in alleviating public fear and valuable as a guide to safe reopening of society.  In his article Monday, in The Hill, Dr. Atlas lists four policy failures at the state level, each with scientific data from the CDC and other sources to support his claims.  The four policy failures he lists are as follows (emphasis mine):

1.  There has been a failure to remind everyone that the stated goal of the policy — total lockdown and whole-population isolation — has been accomplished in most of the United States, including the epicenter of New York.

2.  There has been a failure to reassure everyone that we fully anticipate more cases will occur, whether we test or not, with continuing relaxation of today’s isolation.

Many Americans are gripped in fear when they hear that more reported cases of COVID-19 are appearing daily with even more cases reported in some areas.   But remember, we are doing more testing—more testing means more reported cases!  But notice from my Data Table above that 90 to 98% of reported cases recover. 

3.  There has been a failure to educate the public that the overall fatality rate is not only far lower than previously thought but is extremely low in almost everyone other than the elderly.

Allow me to elaborate on failure #3 as it relates to the relatively large percentage of COVID-19 deaths among the elderly.  According a New York Times article, May 11, one-third of all US deaths to Coronavirus (est. 26,000, May 18) are from nursing home residents and workers.  Notice from my Data Table that nursing home deaths vary widely in percentage of total deaths by state.  

It is now believed that the large number of deaths of nursing home residents and workers in several states including NY, MA, and PA was due at least in part to the negligence or incompetence of state government officials and nursing home administrators.  The unfortunate higher number of nursing home deaths in some of these states is reflected in their higher “Mortality” rates (#Deaths/100K) (see Data Table).  The clear implication is that we dropped the ball in protecting our high-risk seniors while focusing instead on social isolation of the rest of us who are at low-risk.

4.  There has been a failure to clarify to parents the truth about the extremely low risk to children, and that has accompanied a gross failure to offer a rational medical perspective regarding schools reopening.

The #4 failure on Dr. Atlas’s list is the unfortunate lack of clear information provided to parents of young children—information which might have relieved much anxiety, and hopefully still can.  According to a Journal of the American Medical Association article cited by Dr. Atlas, “Of the critically ill children with COVID-19, more than 80% had significant long-term underlying medical conditions. Overall survival and outcomes from critical illness in infants and children with COVID-19 in this series was far better than reported for adult patients.  At the present time, our data indicate that children are at far greater risk of critical illness from influenza than from COVID-19.” 

Lack of good information and its dilution with misinformation threatens to drive school and college administrators to consider delaying reopening of classrooms in the fall of this year.  Dr. Robert Hamilton, pediatrician and founder Pacific Ocean Pediatrics, stated in an interview on The Ingraham Angle that only around 1.7% of people infected with Coronavirus are children up to age 18.  The majority of these are asymptomatic and don’t even realize they have a virus.  Meanwhile, we are learning about the negative impacts of school shutdown on adolescents and on their parents as they adjust to online courses while being deprived of spring sports and traditional commencement observances. 

Conclusion
Every human life is of great value to our Creator.  Therefore, policies dealing with the pandemic should be designed to do the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.  However, given that we live in a culture where the definition of “good” is so often rigorously debated, policymakers have a difficult time.  This is especially true when we allow our definition of “good” to selfishly dominate our political agendas to the point where we allow biased interpretation of data and media reporting to create an unreal world that is far from the truth.

While I have not escaped the world of pride, selfishness, error in computations, and bias, I have tried to deal accurately and honestly in compiling my Data Table and in presenting the arguments of notable scientists and policymakers.   Based on what I have gleaned from my study, I cast my small vote with those who recommend opening our culture as speedily as possible. 

Returning to my analogy of the anxiety I felt while waiting in line for my vaccination as a boy, I gladly remember that painful experience with no regrets.  However, I believe we will all have great regrets after our current painful pandemic if we don’t soon make it a priority to reopen and restore our economy, health services, family togetherness (especially with our beloved elderly), worship opportunities, education, and recreation.  Death from disease is a reality, but life and health depend on many aspects of our culture that have been restricted or ignored all too long.  As always, I welcome your “Comments.”

Acknowledgement:
This article is a joint effort between my wife, Alvadell ("Abby"), and I.  I thank her for her patience, helpful research, and critical suggestions in the writing.

The Conscience of Science: Part 3 Why March for Science?

Kaytlin Goodwin receives 2017 SFIS award from
Dr. Dennis Flentge, Chair of Dept. of Science and Math

One of the key issues facing the scientific community today is not a lack of knowledge, but rather a lack of communication between scientists and the general population. Although I am only an undergraduate, I have already experienced the frustration of trying to relate exciting scientific information to friends and family who do not understand basic biological processes and the jargon or importance of certain natural phenomena. Research scientists regularly face similar challenges. Although their work has vital implications for both the environment and human well-being, the general public often does not understand the importance of practices that are essential for the health of the environment.  
     – Kaytlin Goodwin, Cedarville University
        Science and Faith Integration Scholarship recipient (2017)

As I write this article, scientists and supporters of science are gathering by the thousands on the Mall in Washington, DC as part of today’s March for Science.   Many of these marchers and those who are likewise participating in one of 500 marches worldwide on this Earth Day are committed to the March for Science Pledge which lists ways supporters can advance science and science-based policies.  

Related to the advancement of science, recently Abby and I were privileged to attend Academic Honor’s Chapel at Cedarville University where Kaytlin Goodwin, a senior Environmental Science major was awarded this year’s Science and Faith Integration Scholarship (SFIS).  The above quote from the integration paper which Kaytlin submitted as part of her application for the SFIS captures some of the concerns held by some of today’s Marchers for Science.  The concerns expressed by Kaytlin and at least some of the Marchers stem from a long history.

American culture has been closely aligned and influenced by the growth of science and technology since the European colonization of the Western hemisphere in the 17^th century. Today, most Americans would be unable to survive without the fruits of the natural sciences--the clean air, potable water, food, health services, transportation, and air conditioning.  Therefore, it is for good reason that Americans tend to be supportive of the sciences.

March for Science--and a march for your favorite cause?

March for Science participants aim to encourage respect for science and to encourage funding of research on issues such as global climate change, energy supply, information technology, and vaccinations.  These issues continue to be highly controversial on the political stage of an increasingly divided America.  Supporters of science who are concerned about one or more of these issues are urging scientists to use their professional prestige to take a more active role in educating and influencing policy makers and the general public.  But, is it appropriate for scientists to lend their reputations to political rallies?

Instead of joining the March for Science I am reading and thinking about the nature of science and the proper role of scientists in political organizations and rallies.  In this article, Part 3 of my “Conscience of Science” series, I want to share some of the considerations and cautions that a scientist or member of the public at large should entertain before joining the March for Science, or other political movements.  When one considers joining in pubic demonstrations in support of science or science-related issues (with some unrelated issues often included), it is essential to understand (1) the nature of science, (2) science in today’s news and entertainment media, (3) the responsibility of scientists in public education, and (4) the importance of the ethical conscience in science.

1.  The Nature of Science
We will assume that most supporters of the March for Science have at least a secondary school understanding of the nature of science.  Do you remember having to memorize a definition of science?  Most definitions include two parts, one that emphasizes the method of science, and the other, the management and communication of scientific information.  Science is a method—a systematic study of something—e.g. the natural world, living organisms, humans, human behavior, and so on.  Each field of science has a name (e.g. natural sciences, biology, psychology, theological sciences) and each has its own methodology or variation of the scientific method. 

When the scientific method is employed, the scientist obtains data that can be analyzed and used to determine the validity of a hypothesis. Repeated experimental testing contributes to the development of a systematic body of knowledge that results in the support for a scientific theory.  Theories provide the basis for understanding the scientific field in question and for continued scientific research.

Defining science is much easier than proper conduct of the process of science.  For example, scientists often find it difficult to gather data without perturbing the natural system being studied. Scientists must also avoid falling victim to error or bias.  Often the resultant theories attempt to account for abstract and complex phenomena that are difficult for the average person to comprehend.  Many of us find it difficult to comprehend the nature of a subatomic particle; or conceive of how matter becomes energy at the speed of light; or understand how scientists determine the temperature of planet Earth and use this data in complex models to predict climate trends. 

Although it is challenging to develop a scientific understanding of complex natural phenomena, it is even more challenging to communicate the resultant theories to students, policy makers, or laypeople.  Numerous studies have examined the growing influence of the internet, cable news, and the entertainment media on scientific literacy and opinions about certain hot button science-related issues like those listed above. 

2.  Science in Today’s News and Entertainment Media
According to a 2016 review entitled Americans' Attitudes about Science and Technology: The Social Context for Public Communication, commissioned by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), …despite intensive efforts at public education, science literacy has remained relatively stable for several decades.  The review cites a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center which used an index of 12 questions to measure basic scientific literacy and understanding of science as a process.  Out of the 12 questions, the mean score among respondents was 7.9.  Twenty-seven percent of respondents answered 8 or 9 out of 12 questions correctly, while 26% answered 10 or 11 correctly, and only 6% received perfect scores.  Respondents with college degrees answered 9 or more correctly, and those without degrees, 8 or fewer (Pew, 2015).

Although science literacy in America is low, it does not stifle interest in science-related news.  A National Science Board (NSB) survey in 2012 reported that the percentage of American respondents interested in news about medical discoveries was 60%, new scientific discoveries, 40%, and new inventions, 43%.  These percentages were comparable to those interested in local school issues (50%) and economic and business conditions (43%).  However, only 16% of Americans said they “very closely” followed news about science and technology, as compared to those who “very closely” follow weather (52%), sports (26%), local government (21%), and political news (17%) (NSB 2014).  Could it be that the increasing trend of Americans using social media as their favored news source has diminished our tendency to follow any topic “very closely?”

According to Brossard (2013), …with the rapid adoption of Facebook, Twitter, and smart phones, the nature of science-related news consumption among the public is changing, becoming more social, participatory, and incidental.  As of 2015, two-thirds of American adults say they use Facebook and 41 percent say they get news via the platform. 

Again, according to the AAAS review (2016), in recent decades …political leaders, activists, and the news media have increasingly packaged almost every major policy debate in terms of clearly defined ideological differences.   Republican and Democrat parties have become brand names, each standing for a distinct set of conservative or liberal positions.  This labeling strategy has apparently contributed to the growing ideological divide between the two major parties as reflected on issues such as sanctity of human life and climate change.  The divide is enhanced and sustained by cable news networks which cover science related topics with a decided conservative (e.g. Fox News) or liberal (e.g. CNN and MSNBC) slant.

According to Tom Nichols, author of The Death of Expertise, who was interviewed on PBS NewsHour, …many Americans have become insufferable know-it-alls, locked in constant conflict with each other, while knowing almost nothing about the subject they are debating. There’s a lot of blame to go around for all of this. The smartphones and tablets that we carry around all day that we think can answer anything are only part of the problem. The American educational system, from grade school to graduate school, encourages students to think of themselves and their views as special.  An A is now a common grade.

3.  The Responsibility of Scientists
In our society characterized by low science literacy, yet blessed with multiple sources of science news and the opinions of many political ideologues, the role of scientists and science educators becomes very important.  Scientists who step beyond their laboratory to address policy makers and the public are taking on at least two additional responsibilities.  First, they must objectively and clearly communicate the content of their findings and implications to policy makers and the public.  Second, they must convey the challenging nature of science as a process--one which is easily threatened by unintended bias and often deliberate “spin” by adherents to conservative or liberal ideologues.

Although sound scientific theories are supported by strong statistical probabilities, scientists must continually emphasize to the layperson that there is no such thing as “settled science.”  It follows that modern science and culture should greatly value and pursue good science, a claim that I have made in a previous article, Conscience of Science: Part 2 Do Museums Make Us Muse?  I have defined good science as the dynamic, self-correcting pursuit of truth that tries to avoid error caused by experimental bias, personal bias, or political influence.

International Prototype Kilogram (IPK)
housed in Sèvres, France

To briefly underscore that science is tentative and not “settled,” let’s consider one aspect of the natural sciences that has been “settled”--the standards of weights and measure. While science may argue about the precise speed of light in meters per second, there should be no argument about the precise length of 1 standard meter.  Because the precise units of distance, mass, temperature, etc. are considered universally “settled,” uncertainties attributable to error in quantitative measurement are minimized as long as measuring devices and statistical sampling are employed properly.  It follows that more attention can then be directed at the hypothesis-testing part of science which is not “settled” because hypotheses can never be “proven.”  Scientific claims are accepted only so long as another experiment does not falsify supporting data.

Because of the complexity of the sciences, the great influence of science upon the American economy and culture, and the controversial nature of our contemporary political arena, it is no surprise that not all scientists accept a role as advocates in the public arena.  This notion brings us to the ethical consideration, the last of my four considerations in deciding whether or not one should join in the March for Science.

4.   The Ethical Conscience of Science
Science must shape policy.  Science is universal.  Science brings out the best in us.  With an informed, optimistic view of the future together, we can (Dare I say it?) SAVE THE WORLD! 
These are the words of Bill Nye, host of the PBS children’s science show, Bill Nye the Science Guy.  Nye spoke this morning at the March for Science gathering in Washington, DC. 

Bill Nye, the Science Guy:  "...we can save the world"

I sharply disagree with Mr. Nye.  Science without ethics would more nearly destroy the world than save it!   Science and technology have given us sharp tools, firearms, atomic energy, and drugs.  Where technology has sought to apply these tools for destructive means, millions have died.

 As I have pointed out in Part 1 of this series, “good science” is conscientious about being objective, cautious, humble, and unbiased in a culture that can easily bring bias and elicit unethical behavior.  In short, “good science” has a conscience ((Latin, conscientia = “knowledge of right and wrong within oneself”).  David Resnick, author of The Ethics of Science: AnIntroduction (Routledge), lists as the first three principles of scientific ethics: honesty, carefulness, and openness.

Is it ethical for scientists to utilize their professional status to support a specific policy or political initiative?  For example, should climatologists agree to an invitation to add their name to a list of signatories in support of limiting human-caused climate change?  John Kotcher and colleagues at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia attempted to address this question with a randomized survey of 1,235 Americans. Most respondents did not rate a fictitious climate scientist as less credible after hearing the scientist advocate for specific public policies.  The researchers concluded that climate scientists who wish to engage in certain forms of advocacy have considerable latitude to do so without risking harm to their credibility or the credibility of the scientific community.

Robert Lackey, a former senior biologist with the US Environmental Protection Agency, now in ecological policy and natural resource management at Oregon State University, disagrees with Kotcher :  If your day job is science and your night job is policy advocacy, why would I trust your day job?  Having worked in the environmental sciences for 50 years, Lackey has seen a steady erosion of the credibility of scientists. Lackey agrees that scientists have an important role in objectively informing the public of the facts, but the scientist who advocates for a given policy threatens to take public policy from the hands of the people.  He adds, You have to be careful here, because you end up in a debate over a technocracy versus a democracy.

Hastening to conclude this article while it is still Earth Day, I believe I have at least begun to make the case that the role of the scientist is better served by doing what scientists can do best:  striving to conduct his or her research while being honest, objective, careful, and humble; then, publishing conclusions in an objective, clear manner through print and digital platforms that are suited to others with expertise in decision making and formulation of policy. 

Knowing that there are up and coming Christian scholars in science like Kaytlin Goodwin, I have confidence in a future for the sciences when influenced by individuals with godly wisdom and integrity.  As a young advocate for both environmental stewardship and the importance of improved communication between scientists and laypeople, Kaytlin offers a positive way forward as applied to her field, the environmental sciences when she writes, If scientists and environmental educators can find ways to effectively communicate the relevance and importance of environmental issues, lasting change will be possible.  As Christians, we are especially responsible to teach others about the God-given value of the environment.

References:
I realize that this subject undertaken here is beyond the scope of this article and extends beyond my expertise.  However, I hope we have raised some worthwhile points for consideration and provided some references for further reading.

Brossard, D. (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (Supplement 3), 14096-- 14101.

Nisbet, Matthew C., et al. "Americans' attitudes about science and technology: The social context for public communication." Commissioned Review (2016). To read, click HERE

National Science Board (2014). Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. Arlington VA: National Science Foundation.

Pew Research Center (2015).  A Look at What the Public Knows and Does Not Know About Science. Washington, DC.

“Will a March Help Science?”  The Scientist (Feb. 2, 2017)

Nature Speaks to Us, “Choose Life!”

Two of the most amazing relationships on Earth are sexual reproduction and the subsequent maternal nurturing of offspring.  Both processes involve complex coordination of form and function in both animals and seed plants.  To date, evolutionary biologists have been unable to provide a plausible explanation for the origin of sexual reproduction by time, chance, and random mutations.

Human sexuality is unique according to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures because it has both moral and biological significance. Moral commitment to marriage and responsible parenting within the family unit determine the character of each subsequent generation.  Indeed, many scholars argue that human civilizations have risen and fallen in accordance with their respect for the institutions of heterosexual marriage and family.

Shortly after conception, the developing embryo begins
sending a hormonal message as if to say, "I'm here mom."

Today, the foundation of heterosexual marriage and the family is being undermined by a growing disregard for the moral teachings of the Bible.  Our pluralistic society has increasingly viewed Christianity as only one  among many “religions” from which to choose.  Moral relativism has made it very easy for traditional marriage and family to become marginalized.  As a result, some scholars have pointed to the order and purpose within the natural world as a basis for establishing moral and ethical values and human choices apart from “religion” per se.  For example, the fruitfulness of the host of different species of vertebrate animals owes its success generally to the faithful nurturing of offspring by the parent generation.  Those who know this fact, regardless on their “religion,” conclude there is something inherently very wrong with wanton abuse or killing of animals or their young.

Natural law ethics is based on the belief that by observing the order, harmony, and beauty in nature, we can intuitively reason that we have a moral and ethical obligation to respond properly to it.  It follows that senseless abuse or killing of an animal or human being is a moral and ethical violation of natural law because such acts disrupt a purposeful, forward progression in nature.

In a previous Oikonomia, entitled Stewardship of Creation and “Natural Law” we emphasized that natural law ethics are consistent with what we learn in Genesis when it claims that there is order and purpose in the natural world, and that mankind is both capable and responsible for discerning this order and purpose.  There we also affirmed that application of natural law ethics can inform the biblical mandate for stewardship of God's creation (Genesis 2: 15) through transformation of our character. The steward who takes time to discern the order and purpose in nature (creation) will strive to learn more about her surroundings and how her actions will influence that order and purposeful progression.  Therefore, we believe that a robust environmental stewardship ethic can arise from a merger of natural law ethics and Judeo-Christian ethics.

Like Genesis 1-2, Romans 1: 16-22 emphasizes mankind's responsibility as stewards of God's truth and righteousness (v. 16-18).  Here, we also learn that God has given us the ability to know Him personally (v. 19), to understand and be in awe of His great power in creation (v. 20), and to live with thankfulness and reverence toward Him (v. 21).  Instead, mankind suppressed the truth revealed through the order and unity of creation (v. 18) and followed futile speculations and false reasoning (v. 21-22).   This suppression of truth describes the actions of those who, in spite of the evidence of order and purpose in creation and what their conscience tells them, choose to defy and act contrary to both natural law and God’s divine revelation in Scripture.  In other words, mankind’s rebellion is demonstrated by his rejection of “two books of revelation”—the natural revelation and the divine revelation in Scripture.

Most agree that the divine revelation in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures clearly supports laws against murder.  But, even apart from the biblical teaching, we see that natural law ethics provide a strong moral argument against murder. Murder brings a crashing halt to the intricate order of life processes in the human body and smashes the purposes, hopes, and dreams of a precious, living being.  Unless his sensibility, reason, and conscience are seared, mankind's reaction to senseless killing of human and animal alike is to feel deeply the wrongness of it. Because of an innate sense of right and wrong, the one who kills needlessly may live in misery and regret even without knowledge of the Bible's command, "Thou shall not murder (Matthew 5: 21-22)."

Today, slightly more than half of Americans polled oppose the practice of abortion under most or all circumstances.  Opponents of the pro-life position argue that abortion is not murder because human life does not begin until some point in late-term or at birth. However, this argument is strongly opposed on the basis of natural law ethics.  Here, one can argue that it is wrong to interrupt the orderly and purposeful progression of human development which normally advances in a seamless fashion from fertilized ovum to a fully formed human in the mother’s womb.  There is literally no identifiable stage in human development other than conception to mark as the beginning of an individual human life.

Those who accuse pro-lifers of causing the guilt and misery in women who have chosen abortion often want to silence Christians and their moral stand.  But, if it is true that natural law ethics provides a strong case against abortion, then emotional and physical consequences may be expected even if Christianity could be erased from our culture.  In support of this notion, recent scientific findings are uncovering more subtle and unexpected consequences of the abuse of the natural order of human reproduction.

First, there is growing evidence that abortion tends to diminish and even jeopardize the life of the mother. The Post-Abortion Depression Research and Care Act of 2007 which cites evidence of "severe and long-term effects" of abortion on women, including depression, eating disorders, suicide attempts, intense grief, emotional numbness, rage, sexual dysfunction, and relationship difficulties.”  [Click HERE to read H.R. 1457.]  According to a report published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, “An analysis of 22 studies on abortion and mental health showed that women who had an abortion faced an ‘81% increased risk of mental health problems’ and that nearly 10% of the incidence of mental health problems was ‘shown to be directly attributable to abortion.’” [Click HERE to read more.]  Another study reports similar emotional disruptions in the fathers of aborted children [Click HERE to read more.].

Those who blame the emotional consequences of abortion on pro-lifers who create a moral stigma against abortion cannot be totally disregarded.  After all, history reveals that voices of moral opposition have in at least some instances served to keep cultures from drifting into immoral practices.   However, scientific research from Scandinavia where there is even less social opposition to abortion than in America nonetheless reports that the suicide rate is 40 percent higher in the first year after an abortion [Click HERE to read more.].  There are both emotional and biological consequences to interrupting the natural progression of human development.  Commenting on the same study, Dr. Camilla Hersh, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, adds “For every abortion a woman has, her risk of having a premature baby goes up 30 percent. It’s 30 percent higher with the first one, 60 percent with the second.” 

What is the take-home message of these statistics?  It seems that when human development within the woman’s body is interrupted with an abortion, we encounter consequences that are deeply rooted in the natural order, design, and purposes for sexuality and reproduction in the female body.  When these processes are thwarted in their purpose, the consequences play out in the form of not only emotional imbalances but also biological disruptions as expressed in the tendency of premature births.  As ethically wrong as it is to take the life of an unborn child, we must also consider the apparently unavoidable biological consequences produced in the mother.  But first, I want to address some words of comfort and admonition to those who have chosen to abort a child.

Readers who have chosen to abort one or more unborn children may be experiencing emotional or biological effects right now.  If so, I do not want to add to your grief.  Nor do I want to treat you as a statistic.  Although I believe abortion is a violation of both natural law and divinely revealed moral law, there is comfort and forgiveness to be found in God’s mercy as revealed in the Bible.  I pray that you will read Psalm 139 and pursue God to find His answer for bondage to sin and guilt.  Christ will cleanse even your conscience from sin (Hebrews 9: 11-14) as you surrender to Him. Then you will recognize your sin as the cause of your anguish, and stop blaming Christians and their "moral hangups" for your guilt and unrest.  I would encourage you to visit Oikonomia, August 30, 2015.  Near the end of that article, start reading with “How About It?  where you will find an invitation to consider the “Good News” (Gospel) of Christ.  There is also a link to a helpful outline, called “What Are the Four Spiritual Laws?” This resource presents the Gospel and invites you to consider the salvation and forgiveness of Christ that is available to all of us sinners.  You are also welcome to e-mail me if you have particular questions (silviusj@cedarville.edu).

Scientists are discovering a "beautiful cooperation" between
mother and the unborn child that lasts long after birth.

We have seen that interruption of the natural order of human sexual reproduction by abortion can have serious negative effects.  But, on a more positive note, science is discovering even more evidence of amazing benefits to mothers who “choose life” and do not disrupt the natural order of the processes of prenatal development.  Rheumatologist J. Lee Nelson, of the University of Washington, speaking to NPR Radio, explained findings from her laboratory that an unborn baby’s cells can move through the placenta and into the mother’s bloodstream where they can enter her heart, brain, liver, and other organs.  These cells can act like stem cells and transform into other cell types that can form collagen, participate in wound healing, and even reduce the risk the mother will develop cancer or rheumatoid arthritis.  The mother’s cells, including cells from previous pregnancies, can also cross through the placenta and into her baby, thus providing a biological linkage among siblings.  Dr. Nelson calls it “a beautiful cooperation” between a mother and her unborn child.

I close with two points for your consideration.  First, even if one doesn’t recognize the authority of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures that defend the sanctity of human life, there is reason to consider the claims of natural law ethics.  Natural law ethics offer a robust defense of sanctity of human life and this ethic is strengthened as science continues to reveal the marvelous array of intricate relationships involved in prenatal human development. By providing both disincentives and incentives, nature  apart from the Bible calls out to us, "Choose Life!"

Second, we should take more seriously every aspect of our stewardship of the natural world.  The notion of “natural law” should humble us to realize our part in an amazing order of creation which speaks of order, design, and purpose.  We should avoid actions that thwart obvious purposes at work in nature, especially to needlessly jeopardize our own life or the life of another human or creature.  However, natural law ethics alone cannot inform us of the Great Cause of the order and design of creation.  Only the divine revelation of Scriptures can explain our moral depravity and our need for salvation through faith in Christ Who died as our atoning sacrifice (e.g. John 3: 16).  Creation displays an order, pattern, and purpose that points to God as Creator.  And this is the Creator Who is affirmed in the divine revelation of Scripture as the God Whose invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1: 20).   

…God is forever seeking to speak Himself out to His creation. The whole Bible supports the idea. God is speaking. Not God spoke, but God is speaking. He is by His nature continuously articulate. He fills the world with His speaking Voice.  (From:  A.W. Tozer,  “The Speaking Voice”, in The Pursuit of God (Regal)

How About You?

Are you sensitive to God speaking to you as you observe the "book of nature" with its display of the order and purpose of life all around you?  Do you also sense God's invitation for you to consider the "book of His inspired Word," the Bible, which assures you of His love and victorious life when you seek out and follow His plan and purposes?   Want to share your thoughts or a question?   I’d love to hear from you.  Just use the “Comment” box below.