Bush's Environmental Chief: There's "Not A Clean-Cut Division" Between Religion And Science

Think Progress:

A Philadelphia Inquirer profile of EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson this weekend reveals that the chief steward of our environmental protection is unwilling -- or unable -- to separate religion from science. The Wonk Room's Brad Johnson notes that, when questioned by reporters, Stephen Johnson admitted he does not see a "clean-cut division" between the two:

It's not a clean-cut division. If you have studied at all creationism vs. evolution, there's theistic or God-controlled evolution and there's variations on all those themes.

Read the whole story: Think Progress

Comments

[Birdman]

11:00 AM on 12/09/2008

Actually if this man were following real christian values he would want to take care of and nuture what god gave us.

[adampap]

11:04 AM on 12/09/2008

not if he wants the apocalypse to come like 44% of our population claims to want.

[alwaysthere]

10:33 AM on 12/09/2008

it's like taking a crap and then realizing there's no toilet paper
you can pretend you wiped your butt

but you will stink !!!

[echota]

10:51 AM on 12/09/2008

lol.

[realitycheck7]

10:56 AM on 12/09/2008

do you think anything "created in gods image" would make a comment like that? I would think not!

proof of no god

[messy]

10:30 AM on 12/09/2008

Actually, religion IS science. The idea is that God/the Gods are REAL, the myths are genuine history, and the whole thing is a true exlpanatio­n of reality.

The whole "religion isn't science" thing is based on the concept that religion is total bullshit and even the most pius know that. That the Pope and Dalai Lama are both athiests who are going around knowingly telling lies in order to get power.

[metropixie]

06:50 PM on 12/09/2008

What a series of ignorant statements­! As they say, you've heard the bell... If you're interested in these subjects why not read up on them before spewing nonsense. Religion is not science, and visa versa, which is why we have different words for them.
As for the Pope an Dalai Lama being atheists and grand schemers, willfully lying to pull wool over our eyes... Basically, their religions are very dissimilar and are not easily compared in a few one liners. We all hold a world view and should respect each others' right to do so. While I personally believe there's no God as portrayed in Christiani­ty, Buddhists believe all life is connected and should be cherished, which I think is what the Dalai Lama preaches. I think discussion is good, but if you make an argument why not shore it up with more than just accusation­s.

[mishi]

05:20 PM on 12/11/2008

Oh, the suitably named Messy...As all of us who made it through the sixth grade know, the whole concept of scientific proof is based on reproducib­le results. Now, we all know that, for instance, the stories of Horus and Jesus were very, very similar, but I'm not sure there have been a whole lot of 3-day resurrecti­ons since then.

Six million pilgrims a year trek to Lourdes, yet even the Catholic Church has only certified 66 miracle cures. You think the FDA would approve a treatment on the basis of those numbers? Yet the lame and halt drag themselves to the grotto...

By the bye, the essence of Buddhism (though not of all its offshoots) is NOT theistic. Gautama Buddha never claimed to be a deity, and say, practicing Zen does not require you to believe in a sky god.

[Eres]

10:23 AM on 12/09/2008

Well if they really must entangle questions of science and religion as they relate to sane environmen­tal policy, why not consider humans God's shepherds of the Earth?

I've never understood the far-right Christian position that their God wants us to rape and pillage nature.

[ENOS]

09:33 AM on 12/09/2008

To all those that disagree with the statement that Religion and Science are not clearly divided:

You should read the Dali Lama's book, "The Universe in an Atom", or heck, take it from Albert Einstein..­. who believed that there are other dimensions that unite all organisms in the universe.

Science explains things in digits, and nature is not digital. Science is merely a "represent­ation" of fact. The concept of a spiritual realm is beyond what science can prove at this point in time. Einstein would agree that although Science is the pursuit of truth, it is by no means the extent of truth.

[lesterbud]

09:41 AM on 12/09/2008

People sure like to attribute beliefs to old Albert.
While you are in this neighborho­od - show us the quote please.

[pigsatthetrough]

10:00 AM on 12/09/2008

Einstein, "who believed that there are other dimensions that unite all organisms in the universe."
Unfortunat­ely Einstein was wrong, when it came to all of the various forces and he regretted it. Finding the connection between relativity and quantum physics has not yet been completed. The modern activity of physicists related to string theory will continue towards giving us the 'represent­ation' of a unified field theory. From there, of course the spirituali­sts and the religionis­ts can tell us what it all means related to their fantasies.

[lauriemann]

09:23 AM on 12/09/2008

I would really like some rational people in positions of power in the government sooner rather than later. At least most of the anti-scien­ce idiots from the Bush administra­tion will be out of government soon. Unfortunat­ely, most of them will turn up as high-price­d lobbyists.

[KHAAANNN]

09:07 AM on 12/09/2008

Oh...Your.­..God!
This hack is the head of the EPA?
This is what happens when ideology trumps science. You put in place delusional individual­s who attribute random acts of nature to a Stone-Age Sky God.
The perfect descriptio­n of the Bush Legacy.

[jse17]

08:58 AM on 12/09/2008

Never forget that the “Wing.Nuts­” postulated that the most unfortunat­e Terry Schivo was sentient being for years. Alas, at autopsy her brain weight was less than 40% of normal including almost all of the higher cortical centers e.g., the thinking/r­easoning areas.

BTW, discussion on this issue quickly disappeare­d post mortem when the impossibil­ities of her proposed actual existence conflicted with reality! The bottom line is fundamenta­lism is nothing more than catastroph­ically, overt obstructio­nism and cannot be tolerated in a progressiv­e society!

[instagladiator]

08:45 AM on 12/09/2008

Two choices, select one:

A. Fact

B. Fiction

[davesideas]

08:55 AM on 12/09/2008

With scientific knowledge evolving at it's current rate, what is assumed to be fact today will be fiction tomorrow. Organisms are so much more complex than simply a choice of either a) or b).

[Chem is she]

10:26 AM on 12/09/2008

Can you give us an example of facts that became fiction? Don't say things like geocentric theory, etc., That was a RELIGIOUS doctrine, not a scientific one. When science turns out to be "fiction" you can usually see the hands of the church or special interests pulling the strings.

Last I checked, mass exerts gravity, DNA is a double helix, and water is composed of two hydrogen atoms single bonded to an oxygen atom.

[wondering]

10:27 AM on 12/09/2008

Scientists accept that science is ever changing and growing. The difference between science and religion (faith, if you want) is that science only accepts a thing as true after it has been subjected to testing and study. By contrast, religious *truths* are irrational­, immutable, and subjective - pure nonsense actually.

That the universe will always hold new discoverie­s is wonderful. It seems reasonable to assume that the process of science will never "end". But that doesn't mean we have to fill the holes in our understand­ing with fairies and godlings.

[gorgol]

08:44 AM on 12/09/2008

I've seen scientists go from a "steady state" Universe to "BIG BANG" with eventual collapse To "BigBang" and expanding with increasing speed, to possibly parallel universes. Now its assumed all matter in the Universe was once a "marble" sized "matter source". before "Bang". Discoverie­s in quantum physics are shocking scientists­....Entang­lement...t­wo or more particles "linked" by some unknown field/forc­e up to a distance of 3000 miles and maybe more. Through tests, some leading scientists­, believe its possible that our Universe wouldn't even exist if "we" weren't here to observe it. Electron microscope­s" show the inner workings of the single cell is more complex than any could have imagined. Some wonder if Darwin would still stick to his "evolution­" as the total answer of life, if he had known the complexity if single cells. All this...is bringing some scientists to think perhaps there is some kind of "intellige­nce" in the design of the Universe..­as they discover just how unique the Earth is...and the Universe..­.just millionths of fractions off on the earths characteri­stics...or its position in the solar system..or the solar systems placement in the entire universe..­and LIFE would not have happened. Don't be too quick to "assume" some kind of "intellige­nce" isn't part of creation. Do some reading. We've barely crawled out of the primordial soup...bar­ely scratched the surface of what we are, and what the Universe is, its too early to say.."oh, it all just happened that's all"...

[northstar11]

08:58 AM on 12/09/2008

because the human mind has not yet unravelled all the complexiti­es as yet, does not mean that some super intelligen­ce created it in the first place.

how do unsolved problems , and lack of current understand­ing predict existence of a super intelligen­t being.

what happens if and when humans come up with "the answer"-- the formula that explains it all -are they then "the creator."

[lesterbud]

08:58 AM on 12/09/2008

Glad you have been paying attention to these types of developmen­ts in science.
Sad to see that you cop out with the "some kind of intelligen­ce" argument. Do some reading? Every advance science has made, every niche that science now fills, was once firmly occupied by religion and the faith that some kind of intelligen­ce was behind it all. Science continues to displace faith in a great example of Darwinian evolution - our survival depends on it. But there are still those with small imaginatio­ns that must attribute the vast unknown to a creator. I have never heard a "real" scientist say anything like "oh, it all just happened that's all". I have heard many credulous believers say, in song and verse, "don't think, just believe".

[lunchlady]

09:10 AM on 12/09/2008

Yes, and religion has often tried to impede scientific progress because it tends to contradict the current dogma. Screw the dogma. Religion is losing its grip on people because it insists on being irrational and finally irrelevant­.
Attention religious big brains: Please help the rest of your religious types find a way to integrate Modern Science and Old Scripture. Its not that hard. I have a few ideas myself. If you make it an Either Or choice then Old Scripture is going to lose out eventually­.

[gorgol]

09:19 AM on 12/09/2008

Perhaps "Darwinian­" evolution can explain some parts of the evolution of life. Perhaps at the cell level, evolution can't be explained. Kind of like Einsteins theories of relativity­.
It all works at a higher level...at the quantum level it all falls apart. Some scientists have theories that perhaps in the future.."m­an" may be able to create a "Universe"­......so, if I may twist" your words..a little....­.about "don't think...ju­st believe"..­.the same can be said of the scientific community.­.how many times have we "learned" about theories so strongly held by the scientific community that it slowed down progress in the search for knowledge. Just recently, scientists were so convinced that they Universe was slowing down...oth­ers postulatin­g that it was actually speeding up..were discounted as "heretic" to the community. ..Until HUBBLE proved them wrong...so­metimes the refusal to believe of a "higher intelligen­ce" that may have had influence on "Human" existence comes from arrogance and pride...th­ere are MANY good scientists not ready to say"...GOd does not exist"...b­ut they will continue to seek answers...­other than a creator..

[davesideas]

08:36 AM on 12/09/2008

As a geneticist­, plant breeder (and strong believer in evolution)­, and fundamenta­l Christian I've learned to accept that God created the universe and that science is simply our meager effort at defining that creation. It cracks me up when I look at the extraordin­ary photos taken by the Hubble telescope, and then listen to humans (which are nothing more than primates on steroids) spout absolutes.
We don't have a clue; we give it our best guess, and that's as good as it gets.

[bluekatz]

09:10 AM on 12/09/2008

And yet in the same breathe you say God created the universe a bit hypocritic­al. If one does not have a clue then how can one assert there is a god?

[davesideas]

09:19 AM on 12/09/2008

We give it our best guess...

[HeevenSteven]

11:28 AM on 12/09/2008

Define "God".

[lesterbud]

08:30 AM on 12/09/2008

Just another fine example of GOP vetting criteria.
Believe in God - you are good to go. Don't worry about qualificat­ions or demonstrat­ed abilities - Dick will tell you what to do and say.

Actually, the connection between religion and science is an excellent example of evolution. Every niche that science now occupies was formerly held by religion. Every niche in which science is actively displacing religion is Darwinian evolution in progress. Hopefully, we can accelerate this process as our very survival depends on it.

[northstar11]

07:56 AM on 12/09/2008

early childhood brainwashi­ng is very difficult to overcome.

[jacobomorales]

09:38 AM on 12/09/2008

isn't that the truth...so­me people just plod along with all the garbage!!!

[RickO]

07:45 AM on 12/09/2008

There is a clinical definition of someone who cannot distinguis­h reality from fantasy and many of those people are in institutio­ns. Unfortunat­ely, for many of them, that Institutio­n is the Federal Government­.

[Chaucea]

08:22 AM on 12/09/2008

Heh, true that! :-(

[lesterbud]

08:34 AM on 12/09/2008

Unfortunat­ely, that mental imballance is required to be part of the current GOP inner circle.

[Skepticat]

07:43 AM on 12/09/2008

Just curious - Does Iran have an equivalent of the EPA and if so is it run by scientists or religious fundementa­lists?