There are millions of Americans who want to kill science, including some who have announced they are running for President of our dear nation.  And this is not in any way a good thing.

These Americans of course don’t see it that way.  They’ll gladly drive to work, use their smartphones and watch their TVs (physics), take their medicine and cure their ills (chemistry and biology), tend to their lawns and landscaping (botany).  They are fully able and willing to accept those benefits of science that endlessly improve their own lives.

But when the identical method of scientific discovery is applied to subjects that they deem to conflict with their religious beliefs – creationism, age of the earth, climate change (the latter because in their view, God could not possibly have made an earth susceptible to destruction by humans, or alternately, that God put the world here for humans to exploit it to our advantage) – they’ll put a bullet to the head of science as fast as you can say “carbon credits.”

This attempt at assassination cannot fairly be labeled as an assault by atheists against religion. If that were so, there would not be millions of Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists and Muslims who recognize that evolutionary and climate scientists validate their work with the same rigor and scrutiny brought to bear by their colleagues in other fields of research.

The scientific method is not complex. Though varying words are used to describe it, the system comes down to a simple, repetitive process:  Pose a question and gather information about it; create an explanation (hypothesis) for how the question might be answered; create and perform an experiment on data to test the hypothesis; analyze the data and develop conclusions to serve as a starting place for another hypothesis and experiment; and continually refine the conclusions through retesting.

This process is what results in the creation of a “theory,”  a consistent explanation of the data that’s been tested. As more experiments are performed, the theory is refined to fit the ever-widening scope of data upon which experiments are performed.  Sometimes the theory is confirmed as-is; sometimes it changes.  In this way, the development of theories leads to continually greater knowledge.

Many who advocate for the belief system of creationism in lieu of evolution want to establish a generalized perception that their religious beliefs comprise science, when they do not.  That’s why they tried to re-route public perception, by inventing the false explanation of so-called “intelligent design,” which has not one shred of science behind it – in other words, it has not been subjected to the scientific method and proven to be objective or verifiable.

What intelligent design and other threads of creationism might be better called is “alleged holes in theoretical evolution,” or things that have not been or, they believe, cannot be explained pursuant to the theory of evolution.

But they miss the point of science, for the overwhelming majority of scientists (yes, there are exceptions, because like everyone else in the world, scientists are human) are more than happy to test any theory, even one they’ve advanced, in order to arrive at a better understanding of our physical world.  

When creationists say they don’t “believe in” evolution, they are spewing an oxymoron and polluting the rhetorical environment. Evolution isn’t something you believe or not believe – it is a way to describe well-researched phenomena in the most plausible way possible. Those who oppose the teaching of evolutionary science, or insist on teaching a belief system (i.e., creationism), alongside science, see it differently, and wrongly. Whether because of rigid beliefs that don’t allow for empirical research, or to gain a political advantage, or to impose their will on the uneducated, they would gladly sacrifice science to accommodate a worldview that undermines progress.

But therein lies the rub: There is absolutely nothing different about the basic research methodology in earth and climate science than applies to other scientific fields and endeavors. If you destroy science in one area, you are destroying it in all.

And for those who lament America falling behind in the world in the critical areas of math and science, be forewarned: Empower and elect those who would cripple or kill science in any sphere, and you are giving license to it being emasculated across the board.

Ignore this controversy at your personal and national peril.  If you are comfortable with America becoming a nation of Luddites, then by all means, embrace the attacks on evolutionary and climate science. But in our case, we think being smart about science is hip, cool and quite frankly, essential to America’s continued leadership role in the world.