Science is Good

Faith & Science Conversation
,
41

One, I’ve read the open letter a few times and this entire thread once.
In the thread I see a confusion among some participants between:

  • science as a practice or method of exploration and learning
    and
  • governmental policy regarding the application of scientific discovery.

The open letter addresses the importance of funding scientific practice and the benefits or usefulness of the outcomes of that practice. The letter argues for the ethical value of using public funds to advance science as a public good with potential and known public benefits to the US public as well as people elsewhere.

The letter does not address policy for the application of the results of science research. In that way the letter stays out of politics.

Clearly, though, the letter is not as effective as Biologos probably hoped, as it has been misread here by those who are conflating the practice of science with policies they didn’t like regarding the application of science.

Two, Christians who claim some sort of moral code, which includes valuing truth/Truth, have an obligation to welcome subjecting their own popular views on health, for example, “alternative therapies” to rigorous scientific testing as well, and admit when their favored treatment has been discredited.

This is important because, the current U.S. administration is placing unqualified loyalists in key leadership positions. This is not an accident. And scientists are not collateral damage. It is a reward to his loyalists and voters, and it can help achieve some of the adminstratiins goals. RFK, for example, promoted pseudo science that the administrations supporters craved during the height of the pandemic and beyond. Putting him in this position wins the administration support. It also puts a manipulable person in a very dangerous position of power. For example, he can refer to pseudoscience of the past like eugenics as a tool for controling “undesirables” more forcefully. Those who trust the pseudoscience will never know the difference.

8 Likes
42

We expect more and better than simply offering examples that no one disagrees with. I doubt that anyone reading this really thinks the world is flat or that germs do not cause disease

Are you provisional and tentative about a round earth or about germ theory?
[/quote]". Nor do they think that H.pylori is the only cause of ulcers ( [quote=“jpm, post:35, topic:56578”]
90% of ulcers are negative for H. Pylori and are associated with NSAID use.
[/quote]. ​Or about diet…[quote=“jpm, post:35, topic:56578”]

a more balanced diet has been shown to more healthy

We should be able to address important issues with depth, insights and thought, rather than exercise a mastery of the obvious.

Intellectual laziness offers us little in the way of advancing a discussion. Repeating a headline amounts to parroting conventional wisdom rather than demanding honest reappraisals of the facts.

I also note the almost casual reference to “climate change” in the Open Letter. Even this reference is stunning in the implications. It is intended to imply consensus and truth about anthropogenic warming (I suspect), while in reality the cyclical climate changes dwarfs recent warming, and the CO2 has resulted in the greening of the world like we have rarely seen. We can thank God for the warming, since it has resulted in both a world more liveable and more abundantly able to feed 7B people. It merits more than a “thought-terminating-cliche” of the reference to climate change. BioLogos is better than that.

43

That is a very good and helpful description of the two concepts in play here, but I would suggest that any confusion between these is rooted in the article itself.

The very title “Science is good” seems intended to evoke the former concept (science as a practice or method of exploration or learning). Yet in just the second sentence of the article, the author laments the “sharp decline in public investment in scientific research,” and then the third sentence similarly laments “Federal cuts to life-saving programs”. This is clearly a polemic about governmental policy regarding the application of scientific discovery. And I can imagine there may be significant, legitimate dispute about these questions even among Christians.

But to ground or support these policy concerns, the second paragraph reverts to the former concept: “At BioLogos, we affirm that science is a God-given tool for understanding and stewarding God’s world, and we believe that Christians should be among its strongest advocates.” OK… and how many Christians would seriously dispute that? This is back to the concept of science as “a practice or method of exploration and learning.”

Again, a bit further in the article, the author is clearly making an appeal about policy/funding (the second concept you identified above)…: “When we support robust education, research funding, and evidence-based innovation, we are helping to steward God’s gifts to scientists so they can bear fruit. To denigrate this work or defund it is to squander divine gifts.”….again, I could imagine significant legitimate dispute here about the specfics.

… but again, the immediate next sentence tries to defend this policy question by appealing to your first concept of science: “ Scientific research is not opposed to faith; it is a profound act of stewardship.” Again, how many Christians would seriously dispute that statement in and of itself?

Hence I contend that the “confusion” of these two ideas resides in the article itself…. I for one was trying to distinguish these two things that were (inappropriately) conflated or confused in the article.

And hence my own objection: they use as a foundational basis of their appeal the idea that science is good - Science defined simply as the larger scientific enterprise to understand God‘s world. But then then try to use that concept (a concept very few Christians would disagree with) to defend particular policy, budgets or funding levels.

That is clearly a non sequitur, and confuses or conflates those two concepts you outlined above in a way that I find to be a distasteful rhetorical tactic:

  1. Begin with a premise that no one would disagree with.
  2. By means of subtle equivocation, change the real intent of said premise.
  3. Argue for a controversial conclusion that sounds (falsely) like it is based on said premise.

It basically comes across to me like this:

“Milk is Good. All Christians should agree with me that milk is a good, God-given gift to this world. Therefore you must support my political campaign to demand that public funds be taken from road repair and used instead to distribute more milk in our schools. If you don’t support this particular policy position then you are clearly anti-milk.”

44

Making sweeping statements that are based on partial truths is hardly insightful or honest. Many of the statements regarding Covid have been discussed ad nauseam here, so don’t deserve further comment, so will leave them there.
What we do see from the public is a general lack of understanding of what science is and what science does, how science works and what it offers. Hopefully, this will be a small step in helping us out of the quagmire of misinformation that is the reality of the present cultural swamp.

2 Likes
45

Excellent points and much better stated than I was capable of. The problems can be reduced to two basic categories:

  1. Ignoring and/or assuming facts not yet in evidence. Examples include the complexities of decisions relating to governmental investments into specific activities and the best direction for research funding as it relates to who benefits and at whose expense. And…
  2. Captain Obvious: your use of the expression “who could object to that” and “Few Christians would disagree with that” are similar to my exasperation at the stating of the obvious rather than offer depth or details.

There are two logical fallacies involved: your example is good as a non sequitur, which is certainly true that one conclusion does not necessily follow the other. And also is the issue of “begging the question”, wherein an argument assumes what it is trying to prove. This is a way often used by our moderatorns so smuggle into the premise a conclusion. “God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it’s the word of God”.

But enough from me…I appreciate your depth of thought and clarity of analysis.

46

If they were in emails, then how were they public?

2 Likes
47

When that money is funding intellectual pursuits, yes. That is anti-intellectualism. It’s also an attack on basic freedoms where the government is punishing a private university for their views and practices. How would you react to federal funding being withheld from Christian universities until they promised to stop teaching Christianity?

5 Likes
48

Yet another example of the type of misinformation that scientists have to face.

Umm, no. The Green Revolution was driven by scientific research into agricultural practices, fertilizers, selective breeding of crop varieties, and genetic modifications of crops.

The reason we can feed 7B people on the farmland we have is because of science.

9 Likes
49

I do not try to defend the letter but would like to point out that your claims about the climate change are against the facts. I do not have now the possibility to dig the supporting evidence but can do it later, if needed.

You claim “the cyclic climate changes dwarfs recent warming”.
Milankovich cycles or comparable cyclic phenomena cannot explain the recent warming of the climate. The current CO2 levels and the associated rise in global temperature is above anything that has occurred during the existence of modern humans, IIRC. Human cultures have not been adapted to a warmer climate and that is causing serious suffering, especially as human populations have grown beyond all previous limits. The warming is continuing and that will lead to increasing suffering.

You claim: “warming has resulted in both a world more livable and more abundantly able to feed 7B people”

As far as I know, that claim is simply not true. Arctic areas may become more livable but at the same time, large areas that are populated or have served as important food production areas are drying. Crops are failing or yields are declining in the drying areas. In many arid areas, people suffer because of hunger and lack of fresh water. The situation is growing worse as the climate is warming.

Many important rivers get water from melting glaciers or are dependent on regular rains. In the changing climate with disappearing glaciers, these rivers are periodically drying, which is threatening agricultural production along the rivers.
The drying is associated with destructive floods because increasing humidity in the air can cause heavier rains and the increased amount of rain is going to rain during very few days - long periods of drought and occasionally devastating floods. Tens or probably even hundreds of millions of people are expected to leave these areas because they have no possibilities to get sufficient crops in such conditions.
As the warming of the climate declines yields, greater amounts of people will face hunger and thirst. Warming and greening arctic areas cannot produce sufficient food for the hungry billions. We have currently around 8B people on Earth and they need much food.

The worsening situation in the drying areas is boosted by declining fish yields. Warming climate is destroying coral reefs that are important areas for fish production. The heat is associated with increasing acidity of the sea water because there is more CO2 in the water. The declining fish populations lead to overfishing when people try to get their livelihood from whatever they can catch in the areas with the declining fish populations.

The planet is turning towards a place that can produce less food for humans and a place that is, for the poor people, a more challenging place to live because food and fresh water will become more expensive. So far, humanity has been able to reduce the proportion of the poorest and starving people by the increased yields of modern agriculture and by turning natural areas into agricultural fields. If the climate change continues, it will reverse the trend and lead to growing hunger, thirst and suffering.

Edit:
I wrote my response before I saw the comment by @T_aquaticus. He did better work than me by also providing some evidence.

6 Likes
50

I don’t see where it says anything about application, it only says research should be supported.

Which indicates that science should be supported.

2 Likes
51

Don’t we find a cleft stick frequently–we often complain that we think folks are manipulating science for profit, but we decline to have the government set standards (not Dr Fisher). With most scientists who work for the government actually taking quite a pay cut to help the poor and prevent pandemics, what alternative do we have–are we really asking for profiteers, if we refuse the government? Or do we really want no science at all? How does one get a standard and research, without a relatively altruistic government that oversees both public and private research?

Science, in reflecting what happens with pandemics and illness, appears unfair–but that only reflects, as Collins wrote in “The Road to Wisdom,” how a virus (and other problems of the natural world) is not a respecter of persons–good intent or none, plagues and other causes of human diseases really aren’t fair.

It is really hard. Thanks.

5 Likes
52

I’m not sure if there’s a way around this, but regardless, calling it “anti-intellectualism” seems like a Chimera.

If the folks at Westboro Baptist Church got together and established a university (even one with a robust science department), I suspect you might not weep over the US government declining to give that school grant money. And the reason for not funding it wouldn’t be “anti-intellectualism”, no?

53

There’s something else I don’t like about this, I’ve been thinking about it for a bit and finally figured out how to say it. There’s something about this article that just feels like those emails I used to get when I was in college:

“If you love Jesus, you’ll forward this email to 10 people…”

The article came across to me something like that. “If you love Jesus, you’ll support such and such policy of funding such and such science programs…”

Moreover, questions of funding and budgeting, in particular, aren’t often about what is good or not good, but about priorities. I’ve done enough working with budgets in the military to know that if something doesn’t get funded, it is not necessarily because the decision makers did not like it, think it important, or did not think it “good.” It is simply that other things had a higher priority.

For me personally, I recognize that there are lots of good organizations out there that are furthering science endeavors in many areas of STEM, technology, astrophysics, and the like. And I have no issue whatsoever with Christians that would like to donate to such causes, they are indeed quote good. But budgeting is a matter of priorities. But for me personally, when I have opportunity to donate money, or when I have an opportunity to influence larger organizations or donors for where to spend money, I personally prioritize people in the world that literally have no clean drinking water or food.

I absolutely love space technology, the space shuttle, the ISS, and all the rest. They are indeed “good” endeavours. But I’ve also been to those places in the world where I’ve seen real poverty, been in third world hospitals and watched a families lose their children to easily preventable diseases. And yes, I would prioritize funding to lift those people out of destitute poverty where they don’t see their children starve or die from easily preventable diseases rather than space programs.

So if I were emperor of the world, I would immediately cut every single dollar of space exploration and use those billions upon billions of dollars to build hospitals and clean water facilities and the like so mothers wouldn’t be seeing their children die as I’ve seen.

But I guess that makes me “anti-intellectual” or “anti-science”?

1 Like
54

I highly doubt they would have a science department with active research, but even if they did I wouldn’t support any administration if they withheld grant money they earned based on merit because of the political views of the university.

2 Likes
55

The issue many of us have is we are used to priorities being based on scientific merit, not politics. The NIH and NSF have largely been shielded from politics and allowed to be run by scientists who judge funding priorities and grants based on merit. What we are seeing now is priorities that seem to be based on the ego of one man, conspiracy theories, and political ideology.

A lot of that work ended when USAID was defunded.

Why can’t we do both?

4 Likes
56

I wish there were more like you, as I don’t see that as anti-science at all, but just a matter of ordering priorities. Unfortunately, we are in a period where potentially life saving research has been halted, and the researchers of tomorrow will be discouraged from entering scientific fields. I personally think space exploration has a place, but am more concerned with things like medical treatment, disease prevention, and nutrition, which involves things like genetically modified plants that get a bad rap in popular culture as many do not understand what it means, and are susceptible to fear mongering.
That said, I am not sure how much success this will have, as Biologos is preaching to the choir. Perhaps some educational programs might help to assist friends of science be ambassadors to their communities would be in order.

6 Likes
57

Or certainly in the U.S. at any rate! We are busy casting away any/all leadership roles we may have ever cultivated for scientific inquiry or any healthy life of the curious mind generally.

2 Likes
58

Indeed. It is a concern that cuts in government funding will leave only private for profit research. That tends to focus on treatment for disease that have the potential to make money, which is primarily high volume lower intensity disease that requires long term treatment, like diabetes. It is interesting to see how much is spent on new diabetes meds that have little differences between them vs. looking for new antibiotics that may only have infrequent short term treatment durations, and thus are less profitable.

5 Likes
59

Which would harm the poor and hungry: many of the improvements in life for ordinary people have come from the space program; the medical advances alone have been staggering! Then there’s communications, weather forecasting, water purification, home improvements, nutrition & food safety, even recreation (e.g. hang gliders came from Gemini/Apollo, ).

And those hospitals would be filled with things that came from the space program (from CAT scan to modern contact thermometers) and those water facilities would depend on things from the space program, and both would be lit using technology that came from the space program.

No, just unaware of what space exploration has done for people.

Just BTW, early in the shuttle program years an analysis was done with the question of what if NASA had patented every single technology that it developed or partnered in developing, would NASA be self-funding? The answer was that NASA’s income from such patents would be far, far greater than its actual budget, on the order of several times greater. Instead, NASA let others have those patents, which have benefitted the economy by trillions.

1 Like
60

Everyone screams that government shouldn’t overrule their doctors, but the same people are fine with government overruling scientists.

And SNAP and other programs slashed.

That’s a polite way to put it. It’s pretty obvious that private companies don’t want to find cures for disease, they just want to find things that you have to keep taking to stay alive.

1 Like