If Laura Stepp at CNN is to be believed, conservatives who oppose the use of contraceptives for religious reasons have lost their faith in science and are abdicating the use of their intellect in order to maintain an untenable position.
She cites a study which analyzes survey data revealing that, since the mid-1970s, a falling percentage of college-educated conservatives claim to “trust science,” compared to relatively stable numbers among liberals, and argues that those who oppose contraception, question the Neo-Darwinist narrative of evolution, or disagree with certain political measures to address global climate change, are opposed to science in general.
This argument presumes that opposition to a particular political action is the same as distrust of the data upon which it is ostensibly based. But this is not the case. Science is the empirical study of the world around us, and it provides us with information we can use to make decisions; but it cannot tell us what should be, only what is. The choice to use contraceptives or to support legislation limiting industrial emissions may be based in part on scientific data, but the choice itself is subjective. Acceptance or rejection of a scientific finding does not necessarily dictate the decisions one makes, whether moral or pragmatic.
Just before describing (and dismissing) the proposed link between prostate cancer and contraceptive pills, a classic “falsehood” embraced by traditional-minded conservatives, Stepp points out that “the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, counts contraception as one of the 10 greatest health achievements of the 20th century.” When one accepts that contraception is the summit of scientific and medical prowess, to hypothesize that negative side effects may exist and warrant further study is tantamount to blasphemy. The irony here is that the very author claiming an anti-scientific bias among her opponents is herself dismissing peer-reviewed scientific studies which question the universal good of contraception, even if only to suggest an avenue warranting further exploration.
Her “personal favorite” claim made by her conservative opponents is that “a woman can be considered pregnant before her egg unites with a sperm.” Although apparently unknown to Stepp, this derives originally from a standard used for decades to estimate the time of conception after pregnancy is discovered. But it is also referenced in a recent Arizona legislative effort to prohibit abortions after twenty weeks, which includes the language, “‘Gestational age’ means the age of the unborn child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman.”
Despite this claim’s lengthy clinical pedigree, it is biologically incorrect to presume that conception would occur at the beginning of a woman’s menstrual period, rather than some two weeks later when she is in her fertile phase. Problems with this standard are described in, among other places, the journal Early Human Development. Inasmuch as this history may go some way toward explaining the language in the Arizona legislation, it might also be regarded as a counterpoint to the notion that pro-life lawmakers have collectively disregarded the language of the medical establishment when crafting legislation.
Finally, Ms. Stepp offers one further point to support her hypothesis that conservatives who oppose contraception have lost their faith in science: the fact that some congressmen have argued that the “morning-after pill,” or Plan B, causes abortion. While the bulk of evidence indicates that Plan B does not have an abortion-inducing effect, and that it functions by preventing fertilization from occurring (and is ineffective if it has already taken place), the fact that its mode of action has been the subject of multiple studies could be taken as an indication that the question is not extremely far-fetched.
And for the majority of embryologists who stubbornly believe that life begins at fertilization rather than implantation, a drug or device whose contraceptive action occurs after fertilization does cause an abortion. While it is certainly the subject of controversy, the argument that life begins at conception rather than implantation can hardly be classified as anti-scientific.
Ultimately, one’s attitude toward contraception cannot be defined by science alone, inasmuch as science cannot tell us whether a person ought to be prevented from existing. Religious doctrine may declare that human life bears supernatural dignity, and that the openness to generating new life is a good that should not be opposed by artificial means, but neither of these can be refuted by a scientific study.
Thus, an intellectual or religious opposition to contraception, in principle, has ramifications for the use of scientifically obtained knowledge, but does not in any way oppose the gathering of such knowledge. Far from being anti-scientific or anti-intellectual, the notion of ethics informed by religious faith provides a framework for the application of that which we learn from science—a framework which science alone cannot elucidate.
It’s troubling that an intelligent journalist like Stepp can so easily dismiss her opponents as foolish and deluded, despite the fact that every piece of evidence she raises can be easily rebutted by facts that any journalist could easily obtain. And ultimately, the complementarity of faith and science is not a difficult concept to grasp. Instead, it is those who claim that science itself requires that we hold certain political and moral convictions that distort the essential work of science, and betray their most closely held ideological beliefs.
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D., is a Fellow of HLI America, an educational initiative of Human Life International. She writes for HLI America’s Truth and Charity Forum.
RESOURCES
Laura Sessions Stepp, Anti-Science and Anti-Contraception
Committee on Judiciary Senate, Amendment to H.B. 2036
The American Sociological Review, Article Abstracts
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
Macro-evolution as a result of blind chance not only did not happen; it could not have happened. There are not enough probabilistic resources in the known universe to consider it possible. Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell contains all the scientific evidence anyone will ever need to refute blind chance evolution, and to document the ongoing corruption of the scientific method that supports it.
From the spiritual vantage point, the upholding of evolution is indeed in a different category, but of rebellion against God and the resulting spiritual blindness and moral squalor, rather than a rejection of the scientific method. It follows the moral and spiritual script of Romans chapter 1 perfectly, and is a mass delusion provided by Satan himself. Darwin was a perfect vehicle for the introduction of that lie, given his bitterness over the deaths of his family members, but he was not the only one. Can I prove that scientifically? No, but I don't need to. As the Biblical writer of Hebrews states, "It is appointed to men to die once, and after that to face judgment."
Thank goodness evolution also includes natural selection!
I cannot see a better and more concrete example of the anti-science mentality of today's conservatism. It reminds me of the best-selling "The scandal of evangelical mind"...
I wonder if the college-educated have, since the mid-1970s, comprised disproportionately more arts majors (history, sociology, studies, etc., majors) than hard-core science majors. However, if that were true, why would this trend exist only among conservatives?
I've noticed the hostility to climate science, and the warped and distorted arguments against it that appear routinely in conservative blogs and newspapers. These arguments generally fall into one of four categories: 1) quoting the one or two percent of climatologists who fall outside the mainstream while ignoring the other 98%, 2) presenting arguments that have no scientific merit and are easily refuted, 3) deliberately or through confusion distorting the conclusions of climatologists, who often issue formal repudiation of the dishonest article, but their refutations are almost never published, and 4) attacking the morality and integrity of the scientists. I fully understand that science is relative and the current and strengthening consensus may one day change, but one almost never sees an honest argument that actually challenges the consensus. These articles are about ideology, not science.
Why is this? And why would the science vs. ideology divide be growing? I think the rise of shock jock journalism has something to do with it. If you listen to Hate Radio, the arguments are similar to the anti-science diatribes. The "enemy" is "evil", immoral, too lazy to inform itself (ironically:-),) contemptible, and worthy of hatred. Sprinkle in a dose of fundamentalist religion, try to conflate religion and rejection of fact and reason, and you have even college-educated people believing that "the anti-Christ" is at the root of any belief that is anti-conservative.
It's a very clever manipulation. As you can see in the comments above, we have people who actually believe Satan is the impetus behind belief in evolution. Similarly, I recall being told I was "dealing in near evil" when I frustrated a climate denier by trying to show him that a very basic claim he made was flawed. Why would he think it immoral to believe in the science? The same suspicions are carried over to other ideas seen as progressive or modern or anti-biblical (even though nobody any longer believes the sun revolves around the earth.) The corporatists, who own the media, need to get people to vote against their own best interests and in favor of the interests of the corporatists themselves. This very ironic and surprisingly successful manipulation of people through the media -- which includes appealing to distorted "morality" -- is the unfortunate result.
@dukefan - I have an earned Ph.D. in engineering, and I participate in and contribute to the scientific peer review process. I understand probability and logic at an engineering practioner's level; not perfectly I'm sure, but sufficiently for what I do. But that's a plus. Probability amounts to counting, and you don't have to be a scientist to understand the basics of that, particularly as Stephen Meyer explains.
Your comment amounts to applying an Exclusive OR (XOR) to the two "inputs" of correct scientific practice and Christian discernment of moral and spiritual issues, and is thus a logical flaw. In other words, one can be a correctly functioning scientist and a discerning Christian without having to pick one or the other.
@Meggie - My belief that evolution is a lie generated by the father of lies (Satan, a real spiritual person of great power and great evil), and enabled by a bitter spirit that the Bible explicitly states is a doorway to Satanic influence (Ephesians 4:27) does not invalidate the scientific evidence I have referenced. Assuming that it does is another logical flaw. Either one stands or falls on its own. I present them side by side because I believe that First Things readers need to consider both.
Regarding climate science, I've seen enough. The corruption of the peer review process (e.g., Michael Mann and Phil Jones), the attempted elimination of falsifying evidence (e.g., airbrushing away the medieval warm period, a stake in the heart of anthropogenic global warming, by Michael Mann), hearing the embarrassed shift in climate terminology over the decades without any admission of previous false conclusions, the merger of Marxist and environmental statist philosophies underlying the climate coolist/warmist/changeist/disruptionist movement are enough to give me a healthy dose of skepticism regarding AGW.
The bottom line is that people who reject the claims of the Bible about God and the world--all of them--don't believe in nothing, as Chesterton reportedly remarked; they believe in anything. In my view, this includes evolution. Having rejected moral black and white, they have also disabled their ability to discern truth from error in the gray zone of probability and hypothesis testing in which the scientific process operates, whenever the implications of the data in front of them oppose the demands of their violated consciences and the spiritual darkness brought on by sin, the world system, the flesh and the devil. The scientific method, like the Law of Moses, is not the problem; they are both good. It is sin that twists both of these to corrupt ends (Romans chapters 1-7). Scientists, not the scientific method, are the defect in the system. We all--myself included--are helpless before the lies of Satan without God's direct intervention.
To the scientist, I say this: impose scientific rigor by all means, but humble yourself before God, take your fingers off the scales when the data falsify the sacred cows of "settled science," and admit that fellow scientists, even if well credentialed and with the best of intentions, are capable of furthering great deception.
You believe what you want to believe, good for you, it is a reflection of willful ignorance that you do so. I would think, if anything is the work of the devil it would be that.
But Dean, are you quite sure you have been able to resist the temptation to put your own fingers on the scales? You are obviously eager to seize on any evidence that seems to discredit both global warming and evolutionary theory. In fact, you are a passionate zealot to discredit them. It isn't just a matter of which scientific theory is correct. It's a matter of God's truth pitted against Satanic evil. And no-one with that mind-set is capable of objective evaluation of evidence. Are you quite sure that it is reasonable to equate any belief in a human contribution to global warming with Marxism? Could this possibly be irresponsible red-baiting?
One of my best friends is an evolutionary biologist teaching at the University of Chicago. I have had long conversations with him about the Intelligent Design movement. He considers it to be unscientific bunk. And he and his wife are also devout charismatic Catholics. After late night discussions of evolutionary theory, we like to have prayer sessions, and my friend and his wife are amazingly powerful prayer warriors. The power of love seems to permeate the air as they praise God in tongues. And you would have me believe that my friend is actually an agent of Satan. What is wrong with this picture? Can you reconcile this seeming contradiction with your statements above?
That's not what I said. I said that the philosophies of Marxism and the environmental movement have merged. Not every aspect, but the statism in both, and their anthropology are so similar that it is undeniable. Why do the warmists always reach for government solutions? Because that's who they are.
As far as your best friend, I haven't met him. However, I would say that scientists often fall short in their appreciation of design because they have never had to design a complex system and make it run. I can't assess your friend's Christian faith or knowledge of biology from a distance (and I'm not qualified to assess his knowledge of biology), but his assessment of what goes into system design must be lacking.
@ Alan Apar - Sure, I'll check into the names you've given me. Thanks!
In the meantime, Meyer makes many arguments; I doubt that he is wrong in every one. One of his arguments comes to mind, that DNA portions are coded for forward and reverse function. If he is correct in that statement, there's no way that level of sophistication could that have evolved by blind chance and natural selection.
I've taken a quick look at comments made by Jeffrey Shallit and Dennis Venema re. Stephen Meyer's book, Signature in the Cell.
Venema's critique at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2010/PSCF12-10Venema.pdf is, as you state, negative. However, Meyer's replies at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/of_molecules_and_straw_men_a_r051601.html to me, at first glance anyway, seem more compelling.
Shallit certainly has credentials in information theory. However, I don't know what to make of his mocking tone and, it seems to me, his use of definitions to fend off new ideas rather than come to grips with them.
For example, at http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/01/stephen-meyers.html he makes observes that Meyer uses the definitions of Shannon and Kolmogorov information in the context of the term "specified complexity." He then argues that specified complexity is is a useless concept, scientifically speaking, unless one can quantify or measure the amount of complexity in a code without reference to the one who receives or uses it. In other words, if we don't know a language's meaning, then its complexity is not a topic for science to assess, and attempts to do so are by definition unscientific.
It seems to me that he is dismissing the implications of the incredible, complex set of instructions in the DNA molecule, which is used by the cell to perform many functions such as the creation of proteins, because its complexity can't be measured in the same way as Shannon information and Kolmogorov information. That seems a dodge to me, and too convenient. It also has the feel of what specialists typically say about a multidisciplinary endeavor that extends outside their area of expertise, namely,"It doesn't fit entirely within my definition set, so it is illegitimate as a topic for scientific/mathematical inquiry."
Jeffrey Shallit has a good deal of knowledge which should be considered, but his dismissive and mocking tone makes me doubt whether we'll find much wisdom coming from that direction. Not a reason not to review his work, but something to watch as we do, as we remember the words of Solomon, "He who walks with wise men will be wise...."
I must say I'm not very impressed so far, but my read is a first glance and it's thus premature for me to draw definite conclusions. Thanks for your comment, and best regards!
Mechanical and software engineer Charles Bachman, on the other hand, created the 7-layer network abstraction model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model), in which Meyer's functional information fits nicely in layer 7. Shallit seems conceptually stuck in layer 1. It seems Bachman was much better equipped to describe the conceptual framework required for the reliable transmission of encoded digital information.
My dad says, "There are none so blind as those who will not see." I hope that Jeffrey Shallit is not stuck in "willful ignorance," as you label it, but I wonder. He should know better.
Scientists create what is, it is said, while engineers create what has never been. Engineers gain a whole different set of insights than do scientists, because of the nature of their work. Engineers know they need scientists; it's regrettable that it does not work so well the other way around.
My own 2 cents: I would caution a distinction between at least 3 different situations with respect to religion and science.
Situation 1: Contraception and abortion. In this situation there is little real scientific disagreement. Life begins at fertilization, it's just that some people don't want to admit it for whatever reasons. When does that life become HUMAN life is not scientifically defined - and the disagreement about that is not a scientific argument at all. Some people want to believe it is so they can claim an argument based on authority. Whether or not it is appropriate to use our scientific knowledge in some particular way again is not a scientific question. The claim here that is incorrect is that contraception and abortion are scientific questions.
Situation 2: Evolution. We can state without a doubt that genetic variations in populations develop over time. That's an observation, not a theory. We have manipulated species in different ways - that's well supported science. Next step is projecting backwards based on whatever observations we can make. That requires more theorizing, and is subsequently less well supported. But still, to be scientific, I have to have some level of direct observation to base my theories on. The non-evolutionary theories don't really do that - they could be considered critiques of evolution, but don't qualify as independent theories.
Situation 3: Global Warming/Climate Change. Unlike genetic variation, we have no ability to manipulate a global climate in the lab. There are no experiments that remotely duplicate the complexity of the system the theories are about. This is very difficult science. On top of that, most of the talk of "consensus" is wildly overblown - for example most climate scientists agree that the current trend in global temperatures is warming (true), which gets reported (by the IPCC) as most scientists agree that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 35 years (false). But that's only the first problem. Assume the science was unambiguous. The second problem is the claim that political solution X must be done to stop global warming and opposition to X is unscientific. Now on top of questions about the quality and meaning of the actual science, there are claims that particular political decisions are actually scientific - ie. they have no value assumptions and trade-offs. This is blatantly false. The claim is that judging that we should feed the desperately poor today, instead of mitigating potential problems toward the end of the century is a scientific error. It may be a good or a bad judgement, but it is certainly not scientific.
Certainly, the objection to contraception on moral grounds is in no way a rejection of the science that makes the various contraceptive technologies possible. However, I have long been convinced that religious rejection of the theory of evolution is in a different category. The underlying science itself is being rejected. My first encounter with this mentality was a Baptist engineer that I worked with in the 1960s. He explained to me one day that the theory of evolution was no more than a global conspiracy by scientists who all knew they were frauds, and that the conspiracy was directed from the Kremlin for the sole purpose of debunking the Bible. More recently, I have had some of my own university students, and otherwise quite competent ones, write in essays that "there is not one shred of evidence to support the theory of evolution." Of course, when I have a conference with them about their essay, I have to ask if they have bothered to sift through any of the mountains of hard scientific evidence presented by scientists to support the theory of evolution. Do they have any argumentation to refute that evidence?
The point here is that in some cases, religious conservatives may reject the entire scientific community as incompetents or frauds. They are doing so out of an ideological conviction that is threatened by the results of the science itself, not by a moral objection to the use of certain resulting technologies. And it might be argued that this anti-scientific sentiment is growing in our society.
I hasten to add, of course, that all science is relative, and what scientists believe today might be blown out the window tomorrow. But that is the nature of science. It is simply a tool applicable to the natural world, not a religious faith. The problem is in getting people on both sides of the science-religion debate to understand that.