Science does not have all of the answers.

But it does have some, and progressively works to provide others while refining those that need updating.  There many scientific theories in the news these days with great political impact.  Perhaps the two most important are man-made global-warming (climate change) and the Big Bang.  The latter tends to be in the mainstream (as opposed to scientific) news because it conflicts with the theory of creationism (which, to be clear, is not the theory that god created the universe, but that god created the universe precisely and literally in the way described by the first book of the Pentateuch, Genesis).  Thus, certain educational systems are conflicted with regard to what cosmology should form the foundation of science classes.  The second, of course, affects politics more broadly and on a federal level.  If it turns out that humans cause or contribute to global warming (and on the assumption that climate change is bad--or at least bad for us), then something must be done legislatively about it.  The problem with the public debate (and the debate must be public precisely because it has consequences outside of the scientific community) is that the science involved is sometimes quite complex, and the average participant in such a debate may not have all the tools necessary for such participation.  However, there is a bare minimum for participation that I think the average non-expert can achieve quite easily.  That bare minimum is a basic understanding of what scientific knowledge is: that is, you should understand the scientific method, you should understand the importance of predictability and falsifiability, you should have some grasp on the meaning of 'fact', the importance of elegance and simplicity, and recognize the value of peer revue.  Most of these are basic notions one should learn in high school or college.  Nevertheless, many do not learn them, others forget.  The result is that public conversation regarding the social and political implications of science look like this:

Now, I am not interested in weighing in on the topic of climate change (though, you should keep in mind two things: 1. The debate is about human involvement, not whether or not it is occurring; 2. A particularly cold winter does not disprove global "warming"--a misnomer in any case--and can be the effect of such "warming").  What is important here is the misunderstanding of the nature of fact and the importance of consensus within the scientific community.  Many who are untrained or uneducated in science broadly speaking assume that science is concerned with the observable--if you can't see it, science has no business discussing it, and there can be no established fact regarding it.  Nothing could be further from the truth--indeed, theoretical physics is a wonderful example of establishing fact without direct observation.  One may ask what makes Copernicus' heliocentric system better than Ptolemy's geocentric?  Copernicus had no greater view (literally) of the solar system than did Ptolemy--the telescope had been invented by then, but that made no difference since such an amazing tool would have been useless (in this context) to someone standing on the surface of the earth.  What made Copernicus' system better was, first, its elegance/simplicity--that is to say, his theory of the solar system explained more phenomena within our solar system using less math (proportionally) than did Ptolemy's proposal.  Second, Copernicus' system was reliably predictive.  The point is that fact is a flexible notion and does not refer simply to that which can be sensed directly.  Consensus among scientists plays an important part in establishing scientific truth as well--this is one of the purposes of peer review journals.  Of course, your mom was right when she asked, "If all your friends jumped off the Brooklyn bridge would you too?"  You should not agree with an idea simply because most others do (what an incredibly dull and unscientific world we'd live in).  But without some reliance on consensus, we cannot make progress in science (by the way, the same could be said for disagreement).  All of this to make a simple point: to think that science equals consensus is a "science fail", but ignoring consensus altogether disqualifies you from any scientific conversation at all.  Of course, maybe Brian Kilmeade is correct and all the climatologists who suggest that humans contribute to climate change are corrupt.  But before I concede, I'd like to see his evidence--and before he provides that evidence I'd like him to look up the phrase 'circumstantial ad hominem'.

Science, religion and education.

I think it is absolutely imperative that the Bible be taught in schools (indeed, I do teach portions of the Bible at the college where I work).  It should be taught, however, in religion classes or in literature classes.  The Bible is one of the most influential texts in the whole of western history, and should be treated as such.  It is not, however, a science book (nor do any of its authors really make such a claim for it), and, hence, should not be used in science classes.  Apparently the Indiana state legislature agrees, since Rep. Dennis Kruse was unable to pass his legislation that creationism be taught alongside evolution in science classes.  But Kruse will not quit.  Instead, he's decided there is more than one way to skin a cat.  His newest proposal, which he calls the "truth in education" bill, will allow students to ask questions in class, challenging teachers to prove what they are teaching.  Why hadn't we thought of that before?

Creationism and the economy.

Bill Nye makes the connection between science, creationism, politics and the economy.  Rubio is not only wrong about the age of the earth (since when does Rome teach literalism?), he's also wrong about the impact of such thinking on the future of the economy.

Just because it's new, doesn't mean it's News!

In the past days many bloggers, pundits, journos and commentators have been discussing the Marco Rubio interview in GQ.  In my own blog I pointed to some of the more interesting comments on Rubio's evasion of the question in Paul Krugman's blog over at the New York Times.  More recently, several news organizations and blogs have struck back, defending Rubio and/or attacking media coverage of the story by pointing out that then Senator Obama made almost identical statements at a conference in 2008.

Slate.com's approach to the allegedly unbalanced way the media has treated the story was to note that "willful ignorance of science is a bipartisan value".  Michelle Malkin's approach is characteristic, relying heavily on tone and question-begging epithets:

In general, people love to point out hypocrisy; and one could claim that that is what is going on here.  Nevertheless, while pointing out hypocrisy may be somehow satisfying, it is logically irrelevant, and certainly has no bearing on what makes the news.  If I were to critique Rubio's position while maintaining the same position myself, I would be a hypocrite.  However, that would not invalidate my critique, nor would it make my position newsworthy, because I do not have the same standing as Senator Rubio.  Of course the president is newsworthy in this sense.  Nevertheless, "the president said it too" is not newsworthy either.  Why?  Because the issue is not who believes in creationism and who believes in evolution in Washington.  The issue is that certain politicians, and especially politicians on the right, use their religious belief to make policy.  In that sense, their beliefs are relevant and newsworthy.  And, in that same sense, what the president believes regarding creation is about as newsworthy as whether he prefers Tolstoy or Dostoevsky.

Rubio's ruin?

The online world has been all a-Twitter about Marco Rubio's comments regarding the age of the Earth in a recent GC article. Some are defending him--after all, he wisely did not answer the question. Others are ridiculing him--after all, this is a rather basic piece of knowledge about the physical universe.  Paul Krugman has presented one of the more interesting and intelligent analyses I've seen so far (except for his last conclusion, which is a hasty generalization and should have been omitted). Rubio, in his response to the question, claimed, "the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow." Krugman astutely points out that the growth of the economy (certainly in the long term) is connected to education. Rubio's silence on the issue seems to imply that there are two good answers to the question: a) the Bible says the world (not merely the earth) is around 6000 years old; b) physics and geology say that the Earth (and, indeed, the whole solar system) is around five billion years old.  I think it is important to teach the Bible in our schools (and, in fact, I do)--we are speaking of one of the most influential books in the Western Canon. Nevertheless, the Bible should not be taught as if it were physics (I resent having to make this point). Physics should be taught as physics. There is room for disagreement as to the age of the universe, even among physicists.  However, the options are somewhere between 13.5 billion and 15 billion years--6000 is not on the list. The future of all economies is in technology (energy, sustainability, personal computing, etc.). If the US economy is to advance in the long term, science must be a central and strong feature of our education system. By the way, this does not change the status nor the importance of the Bible (virtually none of the church fathers, for example, believed that Genesis should be interpreted literally--nevertheless, none of them are thought to have betrayed the faith). Indeed, it opens up the beauty of what its authors were trying to convey.

Science and Politics

The debate over the role of science vs. religion in politics is not new.  More importantly, it is generally not cogent--it is seldom a conversation much less a debate.  I cannot have a conversation with you if you are more willing to believe in the pits of hell than in the Big Bang.

The conversation can and should be had.  So, to kick it off, here is an interesting reflection from NPR's Adam Frank, suggesting many key issues in the presidential election are scientific, even if the candidates are not talking about it.