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

[metropixie]

Ask yourself, if everything we know to be scientifically true today could fit in a book, would you not reference that as if it were a Bible?
Now ask yourself, if someone today published a book based on quasi-historical assumptions, unexplainable events, would you suspend your disbelief and start trying to convince others that everything in the book is true, or would you regard it entertainment or sci-fi?
There's no proof that burning bushes and snakes can talk, that seas can part or that anyone can walk on water (except maybe Chris Angel, a renowned trickster). So, what would happen today to anyone seriously claiming witness to such incredible incidents?
You can belief anything you want, but it only proves you're gullible (I don't want to use stronger words) and lack the mental capacity to figure things out. We just had 8 years of that and it lead to nothing, and certainly not compassion, but rather near-totaliarism and gut-wrenching ineptness.
People have believed in hocus pocus for thousands of years. I can't predict the future, but at some point I fathom science will have explained nearly everything, including why some people rationally insist on the irrational... To me, that just goes over my head.

[adampap]

My sentiments exactly. I'm so baffled by the lapse in logic that so many people allow in this one part of their lives.

[Alethea]

There is one important clear cut difference between religion and science. Science is deliberately doubtful of itself. Whereas religion (often but not always) discourages doubt of itself - hence faith.

Science can never quite bring itself to say that a hypothesis is ever an absolute fact. That's why the word "Theory" gets so much flack from the Right because science deliberately leaves a smidgeon of doubt within a Theory even though it's never been disproven - such as Evolution. So despite the endless evidence in support of the Theory, a scientist will always admit the (unlikely) possibility that there may be some proof to the contrary that might pop up.

Certain religions, on the other hand, view doubt of it's own beliefs to be a betrayal of God - and therefore viewed very harshly. After all, faith shouldn't need rational proofs, and therefore faith can't be disproven by "rational" means.

This is just one reason why there is a clear distinction between Religion and Science. And it's simply because (whether right or wrong) they value their beliefs in different ways. And it's because of this that it seems like science and religion are completely speaking past each other - because in some ways they are.

However, they need not be mutually exclusive either. But that's a whole other conversation.

[shockmagog]

'When Johnson was named EPA administrator, he presented Bush with a religious symbol, a servant's towel given to each graduate as a reminder to serve God and country.'

'And when Johnson stood before a Senate committee for confirmation, he introduced his pastor as well as the leader of a Washington group called Christian Embassy, a ministry for political leaders.'

'Shortly after he took office, Johnson appeared in a Christian Embassy promotional video, where he spoke of holding 6:15 a.m. Bible study sessions in his EPA office.'

'In the video, Johnson sits on a white couch with an American flag in the background. He looks into the camera and says of his government job, "I can't imagine doing this without the Lord."'
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20081207_An_Eroding_Mission_at_EPA.html?viewAll=y

[Viper]

Yes one says billions , the other says a few thousand... the gulf is a small one... very tiny...

Regards

[derekc06]

where's that picture from?

[Oldtimer]

I love the poster of Michaelangelo and the globular star cluster.
It brings it all together. Where do I obtain a real copy for my wall?

[metropixie]

Try posters.com...

[Wills46er]

The distinction between science and religion is starkly clear. Science, in both theory and methodology, holds itself up to scrutiny. For a theory or principle to achieve and sustain acceptance, reproducible results or observable predictions must be made. In contrast, a religion cannot be subjected to either of the former. Either you believe it or you don't.
Tangent to this discussion is the fact that fully 74% of the American public is scientifically illiterate. That is to say, when asked, they cannot explain even the simplest phenomena such as, "Why do the seasons change?"

[adampap]

Yeah it's quite sad. In a survey of 34 countries measuring acceptance of evolution the U.S. was 33rd, only better than Turkey. Religion's stranglehold on our country is making our nation so collectively stupid.

[YellowPanties]

Let's just do away with religion to be on the safe side.

[adampap]

someday...some glorious day....

[adampap]

The clash between science and religion is so obvious, but so many people like to pretend it doesn't exist. The fact is, every major advance in science has come at the expense of religion. The most brilliant scientists throughout history have been tortured, exiled, or somehow challenged by the church. They have fought every major scientific discovery for years before pathetically trying to use some kind of convoluted logic to explain why all the bible's scientific claims are completely wrong.

Religion is the only area of our lives where pathetic reasoning as acceptable. This is mostly due to the backlash that any critics of religion inevitably receive, no matter how polite or rational their criticism. By withholding criticism of these ideas because they are ‘sacred’, we are fostering a society of stupidity.

[Indubio]

I'm a scientist but I think your assessment is a little unfair; this is not to suggest that your facts are grossly incorrect. Religion and science can coexist although they rarely have. Obviously Stephan Johnson is wholly ignorant of science otherwise he wouldn't have made such a patently silly statement. The boundary between religion (and the metaphysic­al/'supern­atural') and science is crystal clear and has been for quite some time. Science employs a technique called the scientific method. Any fact that cannot be replicated under controlled conditions is viewed as questionable, even false. This includes all manner of empirical evidence that can't be repeated under controlled circumstances. God, any god, cannot be proven or disproven thus god cannot be viewed as a scientifically demonstrable phenomenon. Neither can ghosts, UFOs, or the Lochness Monster, which does not necessarily mean that such phenomenon don't exist merely that they cannot be proven to exist using science. People are free to believe in any of these phenomenon without being ridiculed but they shouldn't expect the scientific world to embrace belief. Personally, I'd like to see some reliance of empiricism. Today, we have science denying what millions of people observe because the observations cannot be repeated. Even if science acknowledged a roll for induction, it wouldn't help prove presence or absence of god however. Believe in god remains wholly a matter of faith not science.

[adampap]

True, but just because god's existence can neither be proved nor disproved does not make the possibility of his existence 50-50. Since there is not a shred of evidence in support of god we should just assume that he does not exist. We cannot know there are no unicorns but since there is no evidence we assume they don't. Nobody claims to be agnostic in reference to unicorns and anybody who truly believes they exist is not taken seriously.

God's existence really is a scientific question. There either is a god or there isn't. Even if there is no way of knowing, there is an answer. All the evidence points in the no god direction.

Most people tend not to ever think about it this way because their hopes and fears hang in the balance. But if there is no god all religions are false. I'm always amazed at how people can just refuse to think rationally about this one area of their lives, but otherwise are intelligent, logical people.

[djk37]

I totally agree.

Here's a challenge from Sam Harris that makes a strong point:

Think of a question for which we used to have a SCIENTIFIC answer, but for which we now have a RELIGIOUS answer.

Pretty hard, right?

Now think of a question for which we used to have a RELIGIOUS answer, but for which we now have a SCIENTIFIC answer.

This is hardly a challenge. :)

[Viper]

That does seem to say it all...

Regards

[adampap]

Yeah he's so good. I wish I had enough money to mail a copy of Letter to a Christian Nation to everybody in America.

[MagisterLudi]

1000s of years ago religious tradition answering scientific questions we had NO CORRECT ANSWERS UNTIL MID 20Th CENTURY!

" If we ask whether the position of the particle remains the same, we must say "no", if we ask whether the electron's position change with time, we must say "no". If w e ask whether the electron is at rest, we must say "no", if we ask whether it is in motion, we must say "no" Robert Oppenheiner.

Compare with "Upanishads":

"It moves, It moves not
It is far, and It is near.
It is within all this,
And It is outside of all this."

[StopGlobalWarmingBeVegan]

Check out science and spirituality on this channel. It'll connect the dot between science and religion.
http://suprememastertv.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=ss

[myangeldog1]

So the Repubs p o o p o o climate change huh?! Well right now we're under thunderstorm warnings in Missouri and it's December!! Now I KNOW it isn't an act of G o d as this state went for McCain! : )

[MyTake]

What goes around, comes around.

The Pope's chief astronomer said recently that there is a strong possibility of Alien life and that they too were created by GOD.

Ronnie Reagan gave that infamous UN speech speculating on Aliens.

Bush, when asked by Bob Woodward if he consulted his Father before invading Iraq. Bush's response was no, he consulted a HIGHER AUTHORITY. I doubt if it was a GOD that told him to invade, then who did Bush talk to (he was likely intoxicated at the time).

The only guy that seems to have gotten it right is Zecharia Sitchin who spent 30 years studying those clay tablets, with their texts and pictures, and wrote his 8 books as a result.

This guy here needs to read those books and straighten himself out! Since Bush can't read, I don't how he will become enlightened, but, then again, he can check with his HIGHER AUTHORITY!

[JimGroom]

The operative term was 'Bush's environmental chief.' That is all you need to know to understand the poor souls delusions. I can't wait for the adults to take over in mid January.

[huffnpuffn]

Faith: there is a God.

Faith: there was a Big Bang

No one has all the answers. Get over yourself.

[mirza]

NO --the Big Bang is supported by fact not faith--see cosmic background radiation

[Skoutt]

I mean no offense, but I think you're missing the distinction between faith and science. Faith is not based on empirical evidence, whereas science is. This post is not refuting that faith is a terrible thing, but rather highlighting the point that S. Johnson fails to make a distinction between the two. Example:

Faith: aliens exist
Science: water freezes at STP

One is a near absolute, the other is simply personal belief.

[Skoutt]

Whoops, scientific error. Water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius at STP.

[huffnpuffn]

They serve different purposes, science and religion, but when it comes to answering the big questions science demands faith if not necessarily God. We have a lot of observational data and we've developed a theory to fit the data, but that's not truth, or, we can't be sure that's truth. As such, we choose to believe in it because this or that theory is the most reasonable. It's personal belief.

[pointyheadprodigy]

This sort of accepted if not encouraged, institutionalized ignorance is a very prevalent and under-recognized form of state sponsored terrorism that troubles this nations own population. A reasonable society might have questions about religion, but the scientific process is clearly delineated and it is nothing like religion as science is set up to learn the truth and religion just insists "this is the truth because I say so in the name of a god who won't back me up".

[djk37]

Actually, there is a difference between religion and science: the former is based on wishful thinking and extraordinary claims without evidence, while the latter is based on logic, reason, facts and empiricism.