A while ago I posted about environmentalism and the religious worldview. I'm afraid that post was overbroad and led to a discussion about whether one can be a religious environmentalist (of course one can) and, more tediously, whether religion is "good" or "evil" overall.
But I had a more specific question in mind. Let me approach it from another direction.
This week Bush came out in favor of teaching "intelligent design" alongside evolution in school science classes.
I've been debating whether to post about this. This is an environmental blog. Is it an environmental issue?
I think it is, if only indirectly, if you accept the following three propositions:
- Environmentalism involves, in some way, to some degree, an appreciation
of the complexity, the variety, the simultaneous fragility and resilience,
of natural ecosystems. It involves some sense that events have
causes, that human behavior ripples into the natural world via paths that
are, in principle, explicable. It involves at once
a belief that human beings can understand the natural world and improve our
relationship with it, and that the natural world is of such vast complexity
that a degree of modesty and awe are warranted.
What teaches us these attitudes? Science. - Conversely, the view that miracles abound, that mankind was created apart from and superior to the natural world, that God intervenes here and there, that events are therefore, on a fundamental level, unpredictable and inexplicable, tends to make one, if not anti-environment, at least of little use as an environmentalist. I do not oppose talk about the majesty of God's creation, nor do I discount the political power of religious lobbies. But when it comes to the difficult thinking about what ought to be done, on both an individual and policy level, a nice dose of good old fashioned reason is indispensable.
- The forces if irrationality and mysticism have an undue influence on our political leaders -- I doubt Bush's sop to the religious right was made from conviction so much as from cold political calculation.
So, to be much more brief: The President (and his party) are encouraging nonsense, the propagation of nonsense, and the habits of mind that produce nonsense. That's bad for environmentalism.
As Matt Yglesias reminds us, the president is not in the minority here -- in fact, he's in a very large majority. Failure to apprehend the most widely accepted building blocks of scientific consensus is widespread. Anti-intellectualism and disrespect for the methods that produce scientific results are widespread.
If understanding of and respect for science were more common, would environmentalism gain strength?
I guess my answer is Yes. What do you think?
(Also: Don't miss this post on Panda's Thumb, which has links to the many blogs condemning the president's statement.)
Comments
View as Flat
wedjr Posted 2:03 pm
03 Aug 2005
I've always had a problem with two words in Genesis: dominion and subdue. Some may interpret these words as domination, subjegation, conquest, here for the taking. That's just narrowminded. More thoughtful and enligthened believers (yes, there are plenty of such creatures) feel differently. So the great opportunity is to disarm both sides of a futile culture war and move to a science/religion commoground around the concept of dominion as stewardship and responsibility.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 6:11 pm
03 Aug 2005
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 6:20 pm
03 Aug 2005
Permalink
Winnebago Posted 2:10 am
04 Aug 2005
Permalink
bhurley Posted 2:12 am
04 Aug 2005
That doesn't mean I think Christianity is bad, but in school I'd rather see students learn how to ask questions than to learn to accept what's preached to them.
In that sense, I agree that this is an environmental issue. Science's view is that we don't know how the world works or how it came to be, and the puzzle is to figure that out. The joy and magic of science lie in developing questions and ways to answer those questions. (The research part of it that comes after is mostly just a hard slog.)
Christianity tells you to accept a vision of how the world should work, and how someone (God or people who somehow communicated with God) decided it came to be. That's a very different approach to understanding the world. Again, not worse, just different. But I'd hate to see kids exposed only to that way of knowing.
Permalink
SyFi Posted 3:19 am
04 Aug 2005
just try
Permalink
Kristin Posted 5:13 am
04 Aug 2005
Indigenous cultures certainly have scientists among them. Those who know when to expect a frost, or can tell you if the upcoming storm is likely to be damaging. Not because they went to university, but because they have observed the natural forces around them, and have learned from them.
FWIW, I'm a pagan wildlife scientist, raised Catholic. With a bachelor's degree from Purdue. Does this mean that I flaunt my degree in the face of farmers and others who have decades more experience with the crops, livestock, and game species than I do? Of course not, that would be shooting myself in the foot, and alienating the very people who could help me to gain more knowledge.
In the same breath, do I go out of my way to insult those who subscribe to a religion I decided was not a good fit for me? Of course I don't. Am I comfortable when people try to convert me to their church? No, and that discomfort does not always show itself in constructive ways, but I do try to remain calm as I extricate myself from the situation.
Labelling, while it can sometimes be helpful, often limits our scope of reality. If I write a person off as a "farmer" or "Protestant" or what-have-you, I will likely not look any deeper than that label, and thus will not seek out that person when I have a question not directly related to farming or non-Catholic Christianity. Perhaps that farmer is also a member of Ducks Unlimited, and restores wetlands in his free time. Perhaps that Protestant volunteers as a docent at her local nature center, and has vast knowledge of flora and fauna in her county.
Kristin from sw Indiana
Permalink
Emily Cunningham Posted 5:35 am
04 Aug 2005
So absurd, yet so to the point. A guy writes an open letter to the Kansas School Board about the importance of teaching another intelligent design theory along with creationism and evolution: that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Here're some snippets. Oh! BE SURE to scroll down and look at the pictures on the left hand side. I almost peed my pants.
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
What these people don't understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.
I'm sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don't.
Permalink
Corey McKrill Posted 9:18 am
04 Aug 2005
To comprehend evolution, one must accept that we, as humans, are a product and an influential part of an ongoing process, and therefore our actions have consequences. Thus there is a certain acknowledgement of responsibility and respect for the Earth inherent in the theory of evolution.
Would "intelligent design" foster similar environmental values? I doubt it. It seems like the convenient and arrogant attitude that humans are the brainchild of some higher form of intelligence would preclude any respect or sense of connectedness with the Earth. I suppose if teachers took "intelligent design" a step further and said, "since we were created in this place, it is our responsibility to the creator to keep it working right," some positive environmental values might come out of it. But now you're really getting into sermon territory... (like even just talking about intelligent design to a group of students wouldn't be a sermon...)
Which isn't to say that people who believe in intelligent design don't care about the environment. What you learn in school is only one piece of the puzzle, albeit an important one.
They clearly haven't yet been touched by His Noodly Appendage though...
Sign up to get the Daily Grist by email, http://www.grist.org/cgi-bin/signmeup.pl
Permalink
Geoff Johnson Posted 11:08 am
04 Aug 2005
In response to the question that the case of Intelligent Design was meant to illustrate:
Yes, of course environmentalism would benefit if understanding of and respect for science were more common.
Now insert "Christianity" for "science" and the same holds true.
Let's imagine environmentalism's strength if both brands of understanding and respect were present at the same times in the same places.
Gristmill's alienation of Christian blog readers is a shame. But it's a tragedy that due to a historical disrespect for Christianity, Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, has said that despite his group's increasing concern for global warming (e.g. the NAE's chief lobbyist speaking out against the Bush Administration's climate policy), he won't accept phone calls from environmentalists: "We are not their allies."
For that quote and more, in the interest of understanding and even respect, check out this a href="article[/a]in World Magazine (" rel="nofollow"Weekly News, Christian Views").
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:26 pm
04 Aug 2005
http://www.panspermia.org/
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:40 pm
04 Aug 2005
"Officials in Georgia have mandated that schools continue to use the word evolution when teaching science. However, as a compromise, dinosaurs are now called 'Jesus horses'." -- Jimmy Fallon, Saturday Night Live, 21 Feb 04
The Discovery Institute, the main force behind intelligent design is located here in Seattle. Interestingly enough, they once received money from the Gates foundation to study transportation issues of all things.
I know a biology teacher in a prominent private school in Seattle who thinks that Darwin had it all wrong, that cooperation (not competition) is the driving force behind evolution. He has sent a number of books and articles (written by religionists that support his odd ideas) home with students. He also teaches that evolution is teleological and purports to be a convinced Christian, whatever the hell that means.
I wonder how far this slide toward ignorance will go. On the bright side, a prominent conservative by the name of George Will came down hard on it.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:41 pm
04 Aug 2005
Will makes this issue as clear as mud.
Permalink
Kristin Posted 12:28 am
05 Aug 2005
Kristin from sw Indiana
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:45 am
05 Aug 2005
But co-evolution certainly makes a lot of sense to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-evolution
Permalink
Corey McKrill Posted 2:15 am
05 Aug 2005
The Talk.Origins Archive exists to provide mainstream scientific responses to the frequently asked questions and frequently rebutted assertions that appear in talk.origins. The archive's policy is that readers should be given easy access to alternative views, but those who espouse alternative views should speak for themselves.
http://talkorigins.org/origins/welcome.html
Sign up to get the Daily Grist by email, http://grist.org/signup/
Permalink
bhurley Posted 2:59 am
05 Aug 2005
That's not cooperation, though, it's the exploitation of a different niche. Shorebirds follow this same principle: next time you go to the beach, compare the length of the shorebirds' beaks...some are long, some are short, and some are in-between. This allows them to all coexist on the same beach without wasting all their energy competing with each other. The ones with the short beaks hunt for food just below the surface of the sand, while those with longer beaks go deeper down. It's not really cooperation, just coexistence.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:54 am
05 Aug 2005
"Cooperation" and "competition" both carry connotations that don't really apply to other species and ecosystems. Plants and animals just do what they do; they either survive or they don't. Two species of birds may cooperate or compete in some sense, but they certainly are not cognizant of each other qua competitors or friends.
Our self-consciousness -- itself a rather bizarre evolutionary artifact of our big brains -- causes us to project all sorts of intent and meaning onto the natural world that doesn't belong there. It also causes us to conclude, falsely, that some super-intelligent ghost must have created us.
www.grist.org
Permalink
Andy Brett Posted 10:06 pm
07 Aug 2005
Permalink
Kristin Posted 12:05 am
08 Aug 2005
Kristin from sw Indiana
Permalink
bhurley Posted 1:25 am
08 Aug 2005
I think the fixation on competition versus cooperation comes from a misunderstanding of the concept of "survival of the fittest." In Darwinian terms, the word "fitness" has a special meaning, which has to do with the number of surviving offspring that an individual leaves behind. A "fit" individual in this sense could be scrawny and weak; "fitness" has nothing to do per se with strength or competitiveness. If I leave behind more surviving offspring than you do, then more of my genes will be perpetuated than yours, and if my offspring are as successful as I was then my traits will become more prevalent in the population.
Behaviors in nature that we view as "cooperative" are perpetuated because they result in more surviving offspring. This works even when individuals engage in self-sacrificing behavior, such as worker bees dying to protect their hive. Those bees are all sisters of the queen, so even though they never actually breed (worker bees are sterile), most of their genes will get passed on by the queen. So what appears to be "cooperative" and "selfless" is in fact ultimately self-serving, just in a roundabout way.
Permalink