In looking back at the article in National Geographic titled
“Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?” by Joel Achenbach. The reason I
am revisiting it is not to prove or disprove my stance on evolution, but rather
to highlight the problem ultimately in any debate and that is BIAS. The article
noticed that many people with scientific understanding were doubting science.
The author grouped these people into two tribes, the “egalitarian”
and the “hierarchical”. The “egalitarian” have a more communal mind-set who “are
generally suspicious of industry and apt to think it’s up to something
dangerous that calls for government regulation”. While the “hierarchical” have
a more individualistic mind-set who “respect leaders of industry and don’t like
government interfering in their affairs”. One tends to trust industry, while
the other trusts government.
What they missed are people like me who think both are out
for their own self-interest and therefore fail to see the “big picture” and
focus on what matches their agenda. This is also known as BIAS! And in the case
of the author he was writing more with the perspective of an “egalitarian” trying
to understand the “hierarchical” mind-set. In the end he was protecting his
tribe by claiming those who believed science were “rationalists” implying those
who were not were irrational.
Mr. Achenbach suggests “for some people, the tribe is more
important than the truth; for the best scientists, the truth is more important
than the tribe.” Often in talking to scientists about God, evolution and the
truth, their minds are made up with the tribe of atheists that believe we are random
occurrences in nature and not a created universe. The ultimate debate is not
how originalism change and adapt over time, but rather IS there a God or not.
Scientifically I cannot deny evolution, we have observed it in nature and often
we look at historical science and the fossil record and it is difficult to deny
the conclusions, unless you have an open mind … but that would require a book
and not a blog to describe.
So maybe now is the time to start that adventure to support
the truth and find it no matter where it takes me. So this could become and
evolutionist turned creationists turned back to evolutionist, or my current
beliefs may be supported. It will be a fun adventure either way. Unfortunately
it will take a lot more to disprove God, since I can already support evolution,
the Bible and BOTH timelines.
I digress, although the article was more focused on climate
change there is an undertone that the people who deny evolution are so ignorant
they don’t even need to be addressed. I have a different slant on his
assumptions, for me I am neither an “egalitarian” nor a “hierarchical” since I
don’t trust either group. I find both groups cannot be trusted since both have
agendas and biases that slant their paradigm on how they view the data.
For his example on climate change, I do not deny that the data
shows a 1.5 degree rise over the past 130 years, I also don’t deny that the
interpretation of the data may be wrong. One side says the man has caused the
change, the other side says the data is wrong and we do not need to change. Me
I say we are creating a mess and need to clean the way we do things, the
problem is Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” in the market place. In the USA we see
industry is polluting our streams and air to the point it was harmful to man,
so government creates regulations that become burdensome on companies and raise
their costs. The people do not accept the higher prices and buy cheaper stuff
from another country that does not see the problem with polluting. So the
market cleans up the mess in our yard, while making one in another country. Nothing
changes overall, the problem moves and gets worse.
So with climate change as with everything else in the
article, the total story is missing. The “deniers” are not anti-science, but
rather choose a more rational view of the data. Often a rational view is not
the accepted scientific view and can sometimes get confused with people who are
considered ignorant of science. One thing climate change scientists seem to
miss is the earth is an incredible machine that is difficult to stop. We have
seen evidence of catastrophic events that have changed things for a moment, but
eventual equalize out.
So to Mr. Achenbach I say it’s not that ALL reasonable
people who reject science don’t understand it. Everyone brings in a bias which
often is not the same as “accepted” mainstream science. My favorite example of
ousted science is Dr. Walter Veith, a biologist who believes in creation and can
explain (and demonstrate) why. He is rejected as a fringe scientist. I am
saying remain open minded, stay grounded with God and explore the world!!