From evolution to global warming to vaccines, science is under assault from denialists--those who dismiss well-tested scientific knowledge as merely one of many competing ideologies. Science denial goes beyond skeptical questioning to attack the legitimacy of science itself.
Recent foment over stolen e-mails from a British research group inspired an American creationist organization to pronounce that "a cabal of leading scientists, politicians, and media" has sought to "professionally destroy scientists who express skepticism" about climate change. The Discovery Institute usually reserves this kind of over-the-top language to attack evolution, so it was remarkable to see it branch out to climate-change denial.
Despite such misleading hyperbole, science is meritocratic. Once you achieve a minimum level of education and competence, you can participate, ask a challenging question of even the most respected scientist, or submit papers to scientific journals, where research is judged by the data and methodology. Esteemed scientists face relentless criticism. This is how science works.
Even when a scientific consensus based on evidence emerges--as it has for evolution and climate change--there is opportunity for dissent. As the great physicist Richard Feynman noted, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
Science requires conclusions about how nature works to be rooted in evidence-based testing. Sometimes progress is slow. But through a difficult and often frustrating process, we learn more about the world.
Science denialism works differently. Creationists are unmoved by the wealth of fossil, molecular, and anatomical evidence for evolution. Global-warming denialists are unimpressed by mountains of climate data. Denialists ignore overwhelming evidence, focusing instead on a few hoaxes, such as Piltdown Man, or a few stolen e-mails. For denialists, opinion polls and talk radio are more important than thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles.
Denialists often appeal to the ideal of fairness, arguing schools should "teach the controversy" and address "evidence for and against" science, as in then-Sen. Rick Santorum's proposed amendment to the No Child Left Behind bill in 2001. But they apply the ideal selectively to science they dislike: evolution, climate change, vaccines. They hope to cloak themselves in the mantle of science without being restricted by its requirements.
If denialists had evidence disproving global warming or evolution, they could submit it to scientific conferences and journals, inviting analysis by scientists. But, knowing their arguments don't hold water, they spread misinformation in arenas not subject to expert scrutiny: mass-market books, newspapers, talk radio, and blogs.
Understanding science has never been more important than it is today. Critical issues such as climate change and the threat of newly evolved flu strains demand greater scientific literacy among the public and politicians. As long as scientists must squander their time defending their work from denialism, we will fall behind on our fundamental responsibilities.
Steven Newton is a project director for the National Center for Science Education, www.ncse.com. He can be reached at newton@ncse.com.
Ervin Laszlo: Evolution Presupposes Design, So Why the Controversy?
Evolution of life presupposes intelligent design. But the design it presupposes is not the design of the products of evolution; it's the design of its preconditions.
Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.: The Danger of Ignoring Creationism
Groups like the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis would be funny if they weren't able to influence politicians, primarily at the local school board level and in state legislatures around the country.
An interesting discussion.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/michael_shermer_on_believing_strange_things.html
It seems to me that famous quote by Voltaire "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" is still true but we have evolved to the time when Darwins Church with an existing infinite life membership of all from amoeba to primate, religious order to atheist group, all faiths and philosophers accept the origin of species as the natural theology. It is possible that through Darwins Church atheist's can always work through reason and ambiguity rather than in isolation / antipathy
Your comments please
Encompassing all entities
The science of life
Infinite congregation
Interdependent
Encompassing all primate belief systems, faiths, creeds, ........... from totem poles to cathedrals all that once gave social order
DarwinsChurch.com
DarwinsChurch.org
Will be an open source organisation
We evolved religions to survive, what’s the point in believing something if you don’t think it’s true? Our fears created our superstitions at the dawn of our intelligence; beliefs are built into us through ignorance. We will always have belief systems, I see no reason why we can’t have a belief system where every living thing is a member by default and is based on reason.
Church
any Christian - non-Christian religious society, organization, or "congregation": the Jewish church.
Congregation
(in colonial North America) a parish, town, plantation, or other “settlement” = the planet
Education is the key, good quality education. Science is everywhere.
It's refreshing to see an article like this on such a popular site. More is needed though!
From the recent UK media (I live in the UK) there is going to be a full inquest into the e-mail thefts and their content. Imo, it's good to keep an open mind as to what really went on and the full extent of their content and in what context.
One more thing, why isn't there a science link at the top of the home page?
Take care
Thank you Mr. Newton.
I have gotten into discussion on HP with Chopra because of his misinformation on honeybees. I have seen article after article on new age types of medicine and those who would espouse them.
I have felt on more than one occasion that stories on questionable medicine and pseudo science has had a negative impact overall on the HP.
I hope there are more articles like this brought into HP.
There is ample evidence supporting evolution and humans' impact artificially increasing the Earth's temperature and climate patterns. I agree. The question of vaccines, however, is another issue altogether. In science, the question is everything. People who question the safety and efficacy of certain vaccines (or drugs or herbs or natural therapies, etc.) do so because we are concerned about the risk to benefit ratio of these substances. Do vaccines have the capability of reducing the incidence of certain infectious diseases? Yes. Are there other public health, dietary, and lifestyle actions that have been SCIENTIFICALLY proven to do the same thing? Yes. Do certain vaccinations also carry an as yet undetermined risk for biological and neurological insult in individuals that are sensitive or more susceptible? YES! To deny this is dangerous and immoral. To raise these questions does not deny all science and/or medical treatments. It also does not take away the evidence of the effectiveness of certain vaccines or drugs. It is however, responsible and the right thing to do because of the potential harm not asking them has on the human population.
Those who question cultural and societal norms, asking for answers THROUGH science should not be grouped with those who use talking points and ideological concepts to win their arguments.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/does-death-exist-life-is_b_410306.html
that contained a link to a review of the author's previous book by a very respected physicist (Brian Greene) I used no profanity, no personal attack, yet the comment never makes it through. I've had similar experiences with several other authors. I've also heard from several other people who have had similar experiences. As a blogger on Huffpo and someone who cares about rational discourse I encourage you to take up this issue.
Nicely done, Steven.
It's a relief to see someone at HuffPo actually recognizes that the scientific process has merit, and that preponderance of evidence actually matters.
It is truly frightening to see how many people, will sit in their warm houses, eating ample food, watching digital TV, and using a global communications network to declare that science a fraud.
Yes, I too find that great disconnect to be baffling. Like the Tea Party protesters screaming for the government to keep its hands off their Medicare, many of those who enjoy the fruits of science and technology mock and reject the process of science.
Perhaps this is just a feature of human nature that we will never be able to overcome. For example, one could say that the best evidence for the efficacy of vaccines is that so many people, who would have otherwise died from diseases that are now all but gone from memory, are instead alive and healthy enough to rail against the use of vaccines.
“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932
Scientific consensus doesn't mean something is a proven fact. Fortunately, science is a constant learning process, and mistakes can be forgiven. Selling out, however, cannot.
The biggest environment problem we have on this planet is pollution, if which C02 emissions are a part. I find it ridiculous to limit our concerns to C02 emissions, when our rivers, drinking water, oceans, land, and food are all being contaminated with toxins and chemical waste. The term "Global Warming" was cast aside for a reason -- think about it. "Climate Change" was chosen to take it's place, yet everyone assumes it means "Global Warming". It does not. Climate Change is solely caused by temperature variations. Climate Change is a "blob" of a word which is vague in meaning, and if it is suddenly disproved, people will likely say "Oh, everything's OK then!" Everything is not OK, and we are killing this planet with insane levels of pollution, strip mining, destroying our rain forests, poisioning our water supply, etc.
Climate Change legislation has become focused on bogus "Cap & Trade" solutions that are merely economic transfers, not solutions to solve the problem. If we start with pollution, everything else falls under the umbrella. "Climate Change" always has, and always will continue to occur with or without mankind living on the planet.