Believe What I Say, Not What I Do
With all the creationism, anti-environmentalism, and climate change denial running rife through Evangelicalism, you might expect that they openly hate science. They don't.
And so I don't find it surprising that interviews and surveys like this one indicate no hatred of science among Evangelicals. All a survey does is tell us how people perceive themselves -- and, possibly, how they want to be perceived. But surveys alone can't tell us whether or not those perceptions and desires map well to reality. The better measure for gauging whether or not hostility actually exists among Evangelicals towards science, then, is their actions(*).
Consider the sheer amount of money and resources Evangelicalism has spent to deny the basic facts of human reproduction and how contraceptives work to try to argue that contraceptives are really "abortifacients" and win the day in court -- and that this denial of reality is part of their religious identity, according to the president of a college that enjoys calling itself the "evangelical Harvard". Consider how many support political candidates who claim that climate science is a hoax. Consider how many still think supply-side (a.k.a. "trickle-down") economics work. Consider that more than eighty percent of them had no problem supporting an anti-vaccinationist for President of the United States. Consider how many still refuse to accept that "reparative therapy" does not turn LGBT people into heterosexuals, and never has. Consider how many oppose abortion, but refuse to take measures proven to reduce abortion, and instead support measures proven not to reduce abortion (e.g., removing contraceptives from health care for all, and making abortion itself illegal). Consider how many support a form of "Biblical archaeology" that ignores all results that are not consistent with their narrow reading of Scripture at best, or funds expeditions to claim findings and evidence where there is none at worst. Consider how many argue that creationism should be taught in science classes, and how many respect creationist teachers as intellectual leaders.
Many Evangelicals will claim, as the one the article quotes does, that "Science is fantastic and I thank God for this. ... It isn't as if He didn't want us to find out about His incredible creation." Their words suggest that they support science because in its revelations, they expect to see God's handiwork. But their actions indicate that they're interested in picking and choosing, in deciding for themselves which natural revelations "count" and which don't, in imagining a God of their own design by considering only the parts of reality they are willing to accept.
It's a small relief that the survey reveals that for the moment, at least, Evangelicals don't want to appear hostile to science(**). I hope their minds are still open enough to withstand corrective persuasion before they decide to change their minds about how they want to be perceived.
---
(*) This, it seems to me, dovetails well with a weakness in some kinds of expressed Evangelical theology that often emphasize word over action. But that's a whole 'nother rant.
---
(**) Do I really need to point out that it's impossible to love science if your attitude is that your understanding of your favorite book and its claims about the natural world is 100% correct and that you will never believe any evidence that challenges that understanding?
And so I don't find it surprising that interviews and surveys like this one indicate no hatred of science among Evangelicals. All a survey does is tell us how people perceive themselves -- and, possibly, how they want to be perceived. But surveys alone can't tell us whether or not those perceptions and desires map well to reality. The better measure for gauging whether or not hostility actually exists among Evangelicals towards science, then, is their actions(*).
Consider the sheer amount of money and resources Evangelicalism has spent to deny the basic facts of human reproduction and how contraceptives work to try to argue that contraceptives are really "abortifacients" and win the day in court -- and that this denial of reality is part of their religious identity, according to the president of a college that enjoys calling itself the "evangelical Harvard". Consider how many support political candidates who claim that climate science is a hoax. Consider how many still think supply-side (a.k.a. "trickle-down") economics work. Consider that more than eighty percent of them had no problem supporting an anti-vaccinationist for President of the United States. Consider how many still refuse to accept that "reparative therapy" does not turn LGBT people into heterosexuals, and never has. Consider how many oppose abortion, but refuse to take measures proven to reduce abortion, and instead support measures proven not to reduce abortion (e.g., removing contraceptives from health care for all, and making abortion itself illegal). Consider how many support a form of "Biblical archaeology" that ignores all results that are not consistent with their narrow reading of Scripture at best, or funds expeditions to claim findings and evidence where there is none at worst. Consider how many argue that creationism should be taught in science classes, and how many respect creationist teachers as intellectual leaders.
Many Evangelicals will claim, as the one the article quotes does, that "Science is fantastic and I thank God for this. ... It isn't as if He didn't want us to find out about His incredible creation." Their words suggest that they support science because in its revelations, they expect to see God's handiwork. But their actions indicate that they're interested in picking and choosing, in deciding for themselves which natural revelations "count" and which don't, in imagining a God of their own design by considering only the parts of reality they are willing to accept.
It's a small relief that the survey reveals that for the moment, at least, Evangelicals don't want to appear hostile to science(**). I hope their minds are still open enough to withstand corrective persuasion before they decide to change their minds about how they want to be perceived.
---
(*) This, it seems to me, dovetails well with a weakness in some kinds of expressed Evangelical theology that often emphasize word over action. But that's a whole 'nother rant.
---
(**) Do I really need to point out that it's impossible to love science if your attitude is that your understanding of your favorite book and its claims about the natural world is 100% correct and that you will never believe any evidence that challenges that understanding?
Comments
Post a Comment