Why do Some People Resist Science?

Edge: Why do Some People Resist Science? (HT: Presbyweb)

It is no secret that many American adults reject some scientific ideas. In a 2005 Pew Trust poll, for instance, 42% of respondents said that they believed that humans and other animals have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. A substantial minority of Americans, then, deny that evolution has even taken place, making them more radical than "Intelligent Design" theorists, who deny only that natural selection can explain complex design. But evolution is not the only domain in which people reject science: Many believe in the efficacy of unproven medical interventions, the mystical nature of out-of-body experiences, the existence of supernatural entities such as ghosts and fairies, and the legitimacy of astrology, ESP, and divination.

There are two common assumptions about the nature of this resistance. First, it is often assumed to be a particularly American problem, explained in terms of the strong religious beliefs of many American citizens and the anti-science leanings of the dominant political party. Second, the problem is often characterized as the result of insufficient exposure to the relevant scientific facts, and hence is best addressed with improved science education.

We believe that these assumptions, while not completely false, reflect a misunderstanding of the nature of this phenomenon. While cultural factors are plainly relevant, American adults' resistance to scientific ideas reflects universal facts about what children know and how children learn. If this is right, then resistance to science cannot be simply addressed through more education; something different is needed. …

I found this graphic especially interesting. Notice who is #33 out of 34 on this list:

My dad was a research chemist in his professional life. I have a master's degree in the social sciences (including study in the sociology of knowledge.) I have been around scientists all my life. I love science. Science is a vital but limited way of studying our existence. It is limited to studying naturally occurring phenomena through empirical observation and testing. It is about developing theories, rigorously testing them, and working toward a coherent model that accounts for all observed data. These models must have predictive value for events we will observe in the future.

Scientists cannot analyze all questions because of their methodological (not ontological) atheism. Some scientists are ontologically atheists (ex. Richard Dawkins), but it does not follow that because scientists adopt a closed universe methodology (no supernatural forces at work), they don't believe supernatural forces and beings are at work in the world. It is a statement (and a critically necessary one) that says how they will limit their study of the material world. Limit is the operative word.

Therefore, Intelligent Design may be true, but it is not science. It is a "God of the gaps" solution to a seemingly insoluble problem, namely the complexity of evolution from one species to another. Since we can't (yet) fathom how this happens, we simply insert God (i.e., intelligent designer, supernatural being), thus short-circuiting the need for further scientific examination. Assuming ID is true, the most scientists will ever be able to say about it is that we have no scientific explanation for how things happened. In the meantime, evolution theory continues to point scientists to look for and find (predictive value) more evidence that supports the theory.

This is a problem for many conservative Western Christians who are children of the Enlightenment. For them, "history" is the precise factual recording of events. It is an idea that was foreign to ancient authors. They read this mindset back into Scripture and see in evolution a challenge to the authority of the Bible (i.e., literal 24 hour creation days, etc.) when there is none. The Bible reveals truth about God through narratives that are certainly based on actual historical events but are not "just the facts" reports of on-the-scene observers. Thus, many conservative Christians have their ears shut to learning about science because of their Enlightenment-driven understanding of Scripture. Of course, the great irony is that science is the crowning achievement of the Enlightenment and Modernist eras.

But it doesn't stop here. I travel in circles that purport to be postmodern and break free from the influences of modernism. One of the central foci of this movement is the abuse of the environment at the hands of humanity through technology and science. A cardinal tenet of this perspective is that human beings are responsible for global warming and that global warming will have apocalyptic consequences. How do they know this? Because "scientists" say so! And when I say "know," I mean know! It is a fundamental, indisputable, incontrovertible, unassailable truth (kind of like how some others think about literal 24 hour creation days.) Challenge this tenet, and just like with the creationists, you will be greeted with vitriolic rhetoric and have your character demeaned. All postmodern deconstructionist sensitivities are jettisoned. No more critique of science as a human enterprise subject to human foibles, vested interests, and power politics (All of which are true!). The science gods have spoken, and we shall obey!

Science emerged from within the Judeo-Christian milieu. In my estimation, it was kidnapped by the Enlightenment and pawned off as her child. It is time for Christians to recover a proper understanding of science and restore it to its proper (though limited) place within the human quest for appreciating the reality in which God has placed us.