He Blinded Me With Science

Have you ever noticed that whenever progress is made, some sort of example pops up to show just how much further society needs to go? It seems as though life is a sort of cosmic Hokey Pokey, where every time a segment of humanity puts its left foot in, another segment does its damnest to put its left foot out. This time, the dichotomy lies in the realm of science and its place in governing, well, governing. In this case, the progress is represented by President Obama's decision to allow federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. It's been quite some time (about eight years, to be exact) since we've had a president who based scientific policy on, as Mr. Obama put it, "fact, not politics." To be honest, it's a little disconcerting to know that this represents a new direction in national scientific policy; should not facts be the source of all decision-making? However, the fact that the change has now been made is a definite step forward, despite what those against this specific process say. I've actually got quite a bit to say about them, too, but that can wait for another time.

The same day that Mr. Obama overturned the Bush Administration's stem-cell policy and changed the way science was regarded in Washington (well, as best as one can change that sort of thing when Sam Brownback is still in office), the following letter ran in the Opinion section of the Post-Tribune. I've decided to reprint it here, in its entirety, because quite frankly, I couldn't honestly believe what I was reading. It's my genuine hope that none of you will, either.

Jerry Davich's recent column asked, "Is it possible to believe in both evolution and creationism?"
In these last days, God is revealing more and more in the Bible. Daniel 12:4 says, "But thou O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased."
We know from the Bible that on May 21, 1988, the Earth was exactly 13,000 years old to the very day, and it was also the end of the church age and the beginning of the great tribulation period, which will culminate on May 21, 2011, when the rapture of the believers will occur. These facts are known in part because we now have a biblical calendar of history.
His column poses another question, "Did dinosaurs rule the earth 100 million years ago?" We would not have the fossils of the bones of the dinosaurs if God had not destroyed this world in 4990 B.C. with a cataclysmic flood, which reached over the highest mountains in Noah's day. Genesis 7:20-21 says, "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail, and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the Earth."
Why have biologists and others not considered this solution? Possibly because they think they are smarter than God. It would take a gigantic disaster, such as the flood of Noah's day, so we could have these bones and fossils to argue about.
For details on all of these issues, the following books and booklets, as well as others, are available to be downloaded from familyradio.com: "Adam When?" "We are Almost There" and "To God Be The Glory."
These are also available free and postage-paid by calling Family Radio in Oakland, Calif., at (800) 543-1495.

I chose to omit the writer's name because I feel wholly embarrassed for him. Give that another quick read. The Earth is apparently 13,000 years old, because the Bible says so. It wasn't a meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, it was the Great Flood, despite the fact that any such flood would have occurred at least 64.75 million years AFTER the last dinosaurs died out. The writer wonders further why biologists/paleontologists/anthropologists would not consider these ideas, and the first thing he can come up with is that scientists think they're smarter than God.

(Trying to tamp my response down to a reasonable level...)

(Still trying...)

(Come on, you can do this...)

All right, I think I'm good to go. First: if the Earth is 13,000 years old, then thousands upon thousands of artifacts are apparently imaginary. There is no shortage of items that can be attributed to times before what would be 11,000 B.C. How do we know this? A little thing called carbon-dating. For those of you who are unfamiliar, I'll break it down: there is a radioactive isotope of carbon, specifically carbon-14, whose half-life is well known. Using this data, a sample can be examined for the amount of carbon-14 present, and based on the type of material from which the sample is constructed, it can be determined how much carbon-14 there was when the sample was first created. Most of what we know about prehistoric man comes from samples that have been backdated using this process; for example, Chauvet Cave in France, home to the largest known collection of cave drawings by prehistoric man, contains drawings that date to at least 26,000 years ago.

Second: the dinosaurs allegedly dying in the Great Flood. Wow, I don't even know where to start with this one. Despite numerous fictional examples to the contrary (the comic strip B.C. being one of the more prominent ones), there is absolutely no proof that man and dinosaurs even existed in the same era, let alone at the same time. This isn't even one of the things supposedly up for debate, like evolution (which I'll get to another time) or global warming (ditto); there is total consensus among scientists. Those who pose this question are not scientists, but rather, and I quote, "Christian historians;" in other words, people who try to fit history into the timeline of the Bible, science be damned. This actually isn't that hard to do, if you assume that all accounts in the Bible are certain fact and that any potential interpretation of said accounts is also fact.

Finally, the reason that scientists haven't considered this idea? BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE! (Sorry, told myself I wasn't going to yell this time.) There's no point in exploring a ridiculous and utterly stupid theory when the one we have is not only sensible, but backed up by scientific evidence. It's the same reason why most schools teach evolution and only the absurdly over-religious teach creationism. When the evidence on one side of the scale weighs it down to the ground, and the evidence on the other side couldn't budge a feather, why should the other side receive equal credibility?

This is the sort of problem I'm talking about. For every action that places decision-making in the hands of logic, reason, and scientific fact, there are five people who decry it as an affront to God because their interpretation of the Bible deems it to be so. Even if you get past the fact that these people view the Bible as literally true, which it most certainly isn't (at best, it's a series of parables designed to keep people in line, especially the Old Testament), there is no getting past their hostility to science. To these people, I offer the words of Lewis Black: "SCIENCE IS NOT F****** VOODOO! SCIENCE IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE LORD ALMIGHTY! IT IS NOT THE WORK OF THE DEVIL!" Nothing prevents the two from coexisting but the stubborn will of fearful people terrified of being proven wrong.

I'm going to close with a line from Bill Maher's last appearance on The Daily Show. It seems especially pertinent to the current discussion.

"There are two Americas, there's a progressive European America that a lot of us live in or would like to live in, and it's being strangled by the Sarah Palins of the world and can't quite be born because this other stupid redneck nation won't allow it."

Until next time, here's hoping we're on the path to one America.