An Anti-Science President

When I was in college in the early sixties, our U. S. history introduction class learned about the Scopes Trial earlier in the century. It seemed that this was the last gasp of American fundamentalists regarding Darwin. We thought that the Scopes trial was a vestige of ignorance that would not be repeated in our public life again.

We were so wrong! Now we have an entire administration beholden to the Christian Right. When scientific knowledge is not compatable with so-called Christian perspectives (from an evangelical or fundamentalist perspective) it is put aside and public policy is formulated on the basis of faith and values.

An example of this is the "abstinence only" approach to sex education which the federal government apparently funds up to nearly one billion dollars annually. In a December 2004 Congressional study, it was found that some of the programs funded with these public monies teach, among other things, that the HIV virus can be transmitted through sweat and tears or that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide (see Gay and Lesbian Review, March - April 2005, p. 8).

Another example of the anti-scientific bias of the Bush administration is its refusal to deal seriously with global warming and to heed the warnings of the scientific community that time is running out in the battle against greenhouse gases. The Bush administration has refused to participate in the Kyoto protocol which would require cuts in carbon emissions on the basis that possible technological solutions to carbon emissions might be discovered.

Yet, the Financial Times on February 25, 2005 made the following statement: "'Carbon emitted now will stay around in the atmosphere for as much as a century,'" says Stephen Schneider of Standford University. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels now, the effects of global warning would still worsen for up to 100 years. This latency means we cannot affort to wait, say climate experts." (Financial Times, February 25, 2005, p. 8).

Scientific consensus informs an huge number of critical public issues. The tendency of President Bush and his supporters in the Republican Party to simply sweep aside scientific consensus when convenient is frightening because the stakes are enormous. Sometimes, as in the discussions on sex education or education concerning the origins of the universe and life, scientific thought is pushed aside in favor of faith considerations. Sometimes, as in the discussions on global warming, scientific consensus is neglected by proposing an alternative supposedly scientific approach (developments of new technologies to combat carbon emissions).

I could go on and on and talk about other issues where anti-scientific bias results in faulty public policy (what about the battles around creationism in local school districts around the country and the witch hunts of teachers and school board members that have resulted?). But the point is that on many critical matters our leaders have chosen to ignore sound scientific thinking.

What to do? That is the question I am struggling with. The best thing, in my mind, is to begin as of now to be active advocating better policies (such as ratification of the Kyoto protocol). It doesn't seem too early to be politically active in the hopes of removing the Republicans from the White House in 2008. The anti-scientific bias is just one of a large number of reasons for wanting this to happen.

And if you are a person of faith--but not far-right--now is a time to try to reconcile just public policy, sound scientific evidence and socially conscious Christian values. We need to make clear that Falwell and Dobson and their constituencies are not the only Christians on the block who are concerned about this country.