In “The virtue of questioning ‘science’”( World Magazine, April 3, 2012), James A. Wanliss comments, re the Gauchat study of trust in science,
As a member of the scientific community, and a conservative Christian, perhaps I can add some insight into why churchgoers might be much less trustful of “science” than decades ago. I have all the qualifications usually claimed as proof of credibility: a Ph.D. (in physics), a consistent record of government-funded research for more than a decade, and an extensive list of peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals.
Yet my scientific credentials have been called into question several times. Why? Because, according to the paper, “conservatives are far more likely to doubt scientific theories of origins,” and, “In 2010, only a third of conservatives believed that global warming is occurring.” To be skeptical of these things is, according to the paper, “anti-science.”
Here’s the sort of attitude among scientists that really cheeses him off:
Mike Hulme, a professor of climate change, explains, “The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved. … It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change … to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic, and personal projects over the decades to come.”
So, at least for Hulme—who in addition to his influential work with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a high-ranking professor at the University of East Anglia (of Climategate emails fame)—global warming “science” is not essentially about science but politics. Then science becomes not about seeking to understand and control our world, but about activism and controlling our neighbors.
Hmmm. The scientist as intrusive social worker … it’s a long way from Eureka!, and not exactly a winning or exciting image.
2 Replies to “A scientist on why churchgoers might be much less trustful of science than decades ago”
According to Oleg Tchernyshyov
Then we have those 53 papers of which only 6 results could be reproduced.
Perhaps decades ago people didn’t know that scientists are very fallible. Heck the professor on “Gilligan’s Island” was most people’s exposure to “science”.
The reason we question science more is because it presents itself as one entity and so since it teaches against God and genesis then credibility is put the window.
Evolutionists always try to prove evolution by saying the whole science tribe is the origin for their conclusions. This backfires since we know evolution is wrong.
In reality origin subjects have little to do with true science as they can’t be repeatable or testable or verified in anyway.
Global warming is not proven either and unlikely and I see as a upper moddle class attempt to make a healthier green world.
I don’t mean conspiracy but a deep desire for something to be true and then change the world.
So very little interest in scepticism.
Its all a humbug.