The Opponents of Science – April 2011
by Peter Denison
Many writers have claimed that there is really no conflict between science and religion. In a sense they are correct: certainly humanistic religions, small in size as they are, have no conflict with science. Nor is religion the only ideology which conflicts with certain branches of science. The Marxist concept of the overwhelming influence of environment as opposed to heredity led to the Soviet embrace of Lysenko’s basically Lamarckian theory with disastrous effects on their agriculture. When E. O. Wilson developed sociobiology, a radical feminist was sufficiently enraged to march up to the speaker’s platform and pour water over his head.
Marxism is not the only economic ideology that has tried to deny certain findings. Many conservatives believe strongly in our so-called free market global economy which will work well with little or no government supervision. To them free enterprise becomes a form of fundamentalism. They regard warnings of global warming and other environmental angers as either untrue or at least greatly exaggerated, and thus they strongly resist any collective attempts to deal with these problems. Some even call the warnings a total fraud. Eventually scientific evidence will win out, but victory in this case may come too late, as it may come after the “tipping point” has passed and warming will get out of control. Thus free enterprise fundamentalism is probably the most dangerous form of fundamentalism currently on this planet.
There seems to be a built in fear and distrust of science. The world is changing so fast that many people feel unsettled. Many scientific conclusions or facts can be understood only if
one has some basic understanding of statistics and their proper use. Under these circumstances many people are prone to believe in some “scientific establishment” that is trying to control our lives and will not listen to us. The “establishment” refused to pay attention to the benefits of laetrile in combating cancer. Later people blamed dentists for using amalgam fillings which were supposedly causing all kinds of ills. Recently, based on one fraudulent study, people were induced to believe that vaccinations caused autism. There have even been some successful lawsuits by parents who blamed their child’s autism on vaccination. Even definitive exposure of the fraud has not completely succeeded in ending this suspicion. Some supposedly intelligent pundits have written as if the question was still open. Perhaps keeping people distrustful of science seems like a good idea to them.
Humanists should work to improve the way science is taught in our schools. Children don’t have to memorize a lot of facts such as the names of different dinosaurs. What they need to learn is about the methods used by science. These methods can begin to be taught even in the elementary grades. It is not too hard to devise an experiment, ask the children how they think it will turn out, and let them find out that it often turns out differently. There will be resistance to an approach like this. Teaching children scientific skepticism can spill over into skepticism about other things too, even religion. Then also teachers may feel more comfortable, especially in this present atmosphere, if they can teach things which can be easily tested by an “objective” multiple-choice test. So we do have our work cut out for us.