Introduction

In 1968, it was inconceivable that man would ever set foot on the moon. But on July 20, 1969, the entire nation, if not world, crowded around their television sets and transistor radios to witness live Neil Armstrong step onto surface of the moon. Exactly how he got there, few knew and even fewer cared. The point was that science allowed mankind to go beyond their earthly limits and constraints. There was no question, no speculation, and no debate; science got that man up there and science would bring him home.

Advil, navel oranges, suntans, eye glasses, strobe-lights, see-saws, motion, gravity, life, aging, and death are all explained by science. Science is behind the scenes to explain the how and why of every question. Often times, the road to accepting the answers is almost more challenging than the road to arriving at the answers.Although it is hardly a new phenomenon, it seems that the pursuit to debunk science is in the political spotlight and popular debate now more than ever. Granted, science has had a very rocky past; full of denial, exile, and imprisonment. But the present skepticism of science in the presence of unprecedented technological research and discovery, as well as overwhelming agreement among scientists globally, presents a danger to scientific advancements and discoveries that we need for our survival.

Many people consider science to be intimidating, impersonal, or confusing. I mean, between the mathematical calculations and foreign terminology, science can be complex and hard to follow. However, when you break it down to how was use science in our everyday lives, science can be quite simple. Jere Lipps, Professor of Paleontology at UC Berkeley has written extensively on scientific discourse and the breakdown of faith in science. In his work, he explains science as "observing events or things and drawing conclusions about our activities and surroundings.[i]" In every action and decision we make in our daily lives, we use science and the fundamental principles of scientific reasoning to decide what actions or decisions to make. When presented with a problem, let's say a traffic jam; we gather data by looking at our surroundings (traffic; listen to traffic report to determine cause of traffic), then we form a hypothesis about what we think will be our best next move (if I take side streets instead of the freeway, then I will get to work faster), then we run our test by taking action (take side streets), and we form a conclusion (it was/was not faster to take side streets to avoid traffic). We can test and retest this hypothesis as much as we want by trying out different routes to work or by listening to different traffic report sources, and each time we will strengthen our explanation or eventually come to a new conclusion. The same basic process can be used from the simplest scenarios like these to complex questions like the theory of relativity.

Science is a constantly evolving process that continues to unfold with new discoveries and observations. Looking at it this way, it would seem odd that there are so many objections to the process. But because the role of science is to explain earthly phenomena, it comes up against contention when positioned against alternative institutions[1]. Science requires constant testing and retesting as new data becomes available or new events are observed. Religious[2] arguments are complete as they are presented, they do not mold to different conditions or discoveries.[ii] Though the degree to which a religious belief or teaching can be interpreted can range from strict to loosely, the bottom line remains that the answer is presented as an unalienable truth with or without evidence. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research defines science as, "‘Science' (the very meaning of which is knowledge) necessarily can deal only with those things which exist at present. The scientific method involves reproducibility, the study of present natural processes. When men attempt to interpret the events of the prehistoric past or the eschatological future, they must necessarily leave the domain of true science (whose measurements can be made only in the present) and enter the realm of faith.[iii]" This definition allows Creationists to disregard scientific discoveries that contradict the Bible because they say they are outside of the realm of how they define science. Religious arguments against science are key players in the pursuit to devalue science. Explaining an event simply as an act of God and therefore discounting the scientific evidence that contradicts it is not an effective way to present an argument. Still, this alternative view has been very powerful in posing alternative "sides" to concrete scientific discoveries.

What effect does this have? If science serves to explain how and why something exists or came to be, then it also can explain how and why we can protect, improve it, and maintain it. There are many things out there in the world that we trust and rely on without necessarily understanding how they work. We trust doctors' advice and often take the medicines or surgeries they prescribe without always understanding every biological impact that the remedies will have. We eat foods that contain ingredients in them that we don't exactly know that they are for. We use technology that we could not have built ourselves and do not know every detail about how they operate. But these medicines, foods, and technologies were developed and tested by people who can and do explain each minute detail of how they work. For scientific progress to continue and thrive, we need to rely on experts who can explain their discoveries with evidence and details, and change their explanations to include new discoveries as the world continues to move forward.

Purpose

As a strong believer in the sanctity of science and scientific discovery, I have a hard time with what I see as unfounded skepticism of the discipline. Researched and scientific claims that are agreed upon by the scientific community cannot be criticized as being the opinions of scientists. In science, if evidence is presented that is contradictory to existing conclusions, then the conclusions need to be revised. In a book review examining the politicization of Global Warming and the resulting public perception of Global Warming, John Lanchester discusses what he sees as three fatal flaws which have led to a public skepticism of science. The three flaws include; the political context of science, the reporting of science in the media, and the relationship between science and the public.[iv] Lanchester looks at how these three flaws have shaped the conversation about Global Warming, a phenomena that until recent scrutiny was confirmed over and over in science to the point that is was not even a debate about human-caused warming[3]. When thinking about these flaws and how they have shaped the Global Warming debate, I realized that not only do these flaws apply to the relationship the public has to Global Warming, but they also provide an excellent framework for looking at the debate about Evolution versus Creation.

To me, the scientific explanation for both the human impact on Global Warming and the process of Evolution are crystal clear and I see no alternative explanations or other ways of looking at these issues. The arguments against these consensus based and continually proven theories are often unfounded. The problem is that once the false claims are stated and picked up by the media and reported back to the public, they become part of the debate. Once the bullet leaves the gun, there is no stopping it. People who believe warrant less claims often do so because they only heard the one piece of evidence and weren't around to hear the claim be refuted and deemed false. This is a perilous situation. In my research I seek to understand the arguments proposed by the "other side" of the debate and refute the perception that there is another side to scientific discovery. My goal is to discuss why we need science and cannot hold it to the same scrutiny that we hold a two-sided political issue. Lanchester asserts that, "Since the climate debate has been polarized on left-right lines in the US, it has seemed appropriate to the media to treat it as a polarized issue, one which there are two schools of thought, which, in respect to science, it isn't: there is one school of thought, and a few nutters.[v]" Again, science is not a partisan issue.

Why do we care? Why does it matter if people trust science or not? Outlining the overwhelming lack of knowledge about science and scientific processes in the general public, professor Lipps discusses the global ramifications of not understanding science. He argues that with more knowledge of scientific causes of "population growth, environmental deterioration, biodiversity decline, greenhouse effects, health problems, food and air quality, natural hazards," all could be understood and more effectively dealt with if there was a better understanding of science in the general population[vi]. Solving these issues does not need to be left up to the experts; these are everyday issues that everyone can work together to overcome. We care about preserving a trust in science because science is here to help us. Scientific research is generally based on advancing the human species and making life more prosperous. Therefore, scientific discoveries often inform the public about something that they can do or are doing that is good or bad for the advancement of themselves or the rest of the human species. We must recognize where criticism of science is coming from, and when it comes from a profit or power related motivation, we must know how to distinguish what information we can and cannot trust. This is about survival.

Part 2 - Evolution

I will begin my analysis by looking at the great debate about the Origin of Mankind. Now, I always thought that evolution was pretty much a societal consensus - that it wasn't really open for discussion. Just a few thousand years ago, people weren't hanging out with dinosaurs, and apes did in fact evolve into people. And so, I've lived my life believing this, reading about it, collecting evidence from paleontology classes or articles, or just kind of picking it up from basic scientific discourse. My world-view is based on trusting science, empirical evidence, and mathematical proof. Although I have very little background in or interest in Old and New Testament based religions, I still don't find it the Bible to be a substitute for the information that peer-reviewed Science has brought to us.

In the time of Galileo, people were as sure as they were standing on two feet that the sun revolved around the Earth. That was it. That was, of course, until Galileo, later to be called "The Father of Modern Science," came along and gathered evidence to confirm the Copernican heliocentric view of the solar system. When he published this information, claiming a reality that was contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, he was forced to retract his statement and spent the end if his life in prison.[vii] We know now, of course, that the Earth and all of the planets revolve around the sun. There is no other side of the story; there is no accepted alternative school of thought. Why is this? Because there is one school of thought called, Astronomy, which observes the planets, the solar system, and everything beyond; and using observational data and mathematical calculations is able to accurately predict and prove the theories and claims that are made. Within the scientific community, there is no debate.

Let me take a moment to bring up an important caveat. In many fields of science and discovery there are alternative methods of testing and varieties of theories being tested simultaneously. However, while many theories might be tested, when consistent evidence comes back continually proving one conclusion, that conclusion is accepted by all. When a question such as planetary rotation is answered with undisputable evidence based on direct observation, the question has been answered and the discussion is over. For issues that are not so cut and dry and cannot be answered based on direct evidence, be it because they are questions about the ancient past or distances too far to travel, scientists trust existing undisputable truths and evidence for form the most likely explanations to the answers. Still, science is always open to the possibility of collecting new evidence and data. It does not present laws or hard facts unless there is no possibility collecting additional data (such as the law of gravity; it's here whether we like it or not). Most claims are made based on a degree of certainty based on the scientific consensus and conclusions are formed when there is 90% or more certainty.

The reliance on consensus within the field allows for a pin-prick to be turned into a gaping sized black hole in the controversy between evolution and creation. Paleoanthropologist scientists explain that human originated from ape-like ancestors, changing and mutating over more than 5 million years[viii]. Creationist explain the origin of life as it states in Genesis; that "the natural universe is the product of the design, purpose, and direct volitional acts of a Creator.[ix]" In the former explanation, one must rely on scientific evidence in the form of fossils collected, bones preserved, genetic research, calculations, and projections based on what we know in the present about current processes of evolution. In the latter explanation, one must rely on the Bible as an accurate account of what occurred in history based on what the Creator did and said as he planned and created the natural universe. Because humans were not present for either event, Creationists have a field day poking holes in the validity of evolution; regardless of the fact that in science, something does NOT have to be directly observed for the empirical evidence to be accepted. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research asserts that,

"the theory of creation and the theory of evolution are attempts to explain the origin of the universe and of its inhabitants. There were no human observers to the origin of the universe, the origin of life, or, as a matter of fact, to the origin of a single type of living organism. These events were unique historical events which have occurred only once. Thus, no one has ever seen anything created, nor has anyone ever seen a fish evolve into an amphibian nor an ape evolve into man. The changes we see occurring today are mere fluctuations in populations which result neither in an increase in complexity nor significant change. Therefore, neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory. Creation and evolution are inferences based on circumstantial evidence^[x]."

Wow. That's pretty concrete, I guess I better just put my computer away and go home. I guess the 99.9% of scientists who agree that evolution does explain the origin of mankind, the millions of scientists and science educators who have issued statements and petitions arguing that there is no alternative explanation of the origin of life, the fact that of all of these people, only about 400 scientists have argued against evolution. Organizations including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Astronomical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Chemical Society, Association for Women Geoscientists, Australian Academy of Science, Botanical Society of America, California Academy of Sciences, Ecological Society of America, Genetics Society of America, Geological Society of America, Iowa Academy of Science, Kentucky Academy of Science, National Academy of Science, North Carolina Academy of Science, New York Academy of Science, Ohio Academy of Science, The Paleontological Society, Society for the Study of Evolution, Southern Anthropological Society, Virginia Academy of Science, and the West Virginia Academy of Science among others. These organizations have ALL issues statements on their unwavering support of evolution as the only possibility for the origin of life.[xi] Each of these organizations has between hundreds to tens of thousands of members, all supporting the statements.

Generally, although how and why something exists may be harder to prove, when a phenomenon is observed and tested, scientists will agree that something is in fact occurring. In the case of Evolution, although scientists cannot go back in time and they might not have every meticulous piece of the puzzle, they agree that it is an undisputable fact that Evolution does explain the origin of humans. My point here is that there IS NO QUESTION among scientists as to whether or not evolution explains the origin of humankind. There is no debate. The debate comes from somewhere else, from a group outside of the scientific community attacking a truth proven by the scientific community.

Evolution has always been a touchy subject because it cuts to the core of the tension between science and religion. Both science and religion, Fundamental Christianity in this case, seek to establish explanations for earthly phenomena. However, while science allows conclusions to change and evolve with new evidence; religious beliefs present ultimate and unalienable truths. Here's a red flag on an issue that is going to be in contention. Debate about the origin of Life, of mankind, of all we hold sacred... I almost don't want to even go there. Initially I knew very little about Creationist theory, and from what I knew, I saw it to be a theory/belief with many holes in it. A lot of questions seemed unanswered and a lot of explanations depended on a leap of faith. Creationists argue that there are missing links in Evolution, well how do they explain anything that dates back more than 6,000 years?

Now this big question, which side of the story should be taught in schools? The 1925 Scopes trial opened the door to the controversy of whether Creation or Evolution should be taught in schools when the ACLU defended a teacher convicted of teaching evolution. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that the belief that a supreme creator was responsible for the creation of human kind was a religious belief and it was unconstitutional to teach Creation in public schools along side of evolution.[xii] The battle didn't end there. Right around the time of this ruling, a new concept called "Intelligent Design" became used in debate as another way to look at the Creationists version of the Origin of Life.[xiii] Intelligent Design is Creationist theory in a lab coat and goggles; and this little misnomer in disguise was successfully able to revamp the entire debate surrounding teaching Creation theory in Schools. For those of you who weren't clear, Intelligent Design is in fact the same exact thing as Creation. This term was picked up by mainstream Creationists in academia and they moved on a large-scale effort to bring in their version of a science textbook into the public schools system. Though the 1987 ruling stood against Creation theory, Intelligent Design was picked up after the case, thus opening up the debate again and pushed right back into the limelight. Each time this case comes up in courts, it gets consistently struck down because teaching Creation is, in fact, teaching a religious ideology. In 2005, parents in Dover Pennsylvania fought with the ACLU against a school trying to only teach Intelligent Design. The parents were successful, and U.S. District Judge John E. Jones ruled that teaching Intelligent Design was unconstitutional.[xiv] With all of the court rulings and agreement among pretty much all scientists, guess who still feels that the ‘jury is still out' about Evolution versus Creation? You guessed it, George W. Bush.

In 2005 George W. said that, "Both sides ought to be properly taught... so people can understand what the debate is about.[xv]" Not only is this statement putting forth the misinformation that Intelligent Design is a "side" to the debate that warrants an audience, but it affirms the inaccurate perception that there are two "sides" to this conversation. This is another example of what happens when the media reports on an issue where false information is being discussed. A person who does not know what Intelligent Design is might hear this speech and then believe that it should be taught with Evolution because they have not heard additional information dispelling Intelligent Design. Yes, it is each individual's own responsibility to gather information and facts from varying sources from which they can form an informed opinion. But let's face it, most people don't do that, and most people rely on the information their trusted sources like politicians and TV news to tell them what to believe. The Intelligent Design bullet left the loaded gun, and countless people have been hit. Outraged by this speech, tens of thousands of scientists and science teachers belonging to scientific organizations immediately released position statements about Intelligent Design, again arguing that it has no scientific basis what-so-ever.[xvi]

Too bad the overwhelming majority of the public doesn't know this. According to the June 2007 Gallup Poll, 48% of surveyed Americans do not believe in evolution[xvii]. Two thirds of Americans said that Creationism was either definitely (39%) or probably (27%) true; while only about 50% said that evolution was definitely (18%) or probably (35%) true[4]. To me, this is a shockingly high figure that sheds a little light on how George W. Bush was re-elected as president. First of all, how is something like this probably true? How do you probably (or probably not, I should say...) believe in clear evidence? What about skeletons, dinosaur bones, prehistoric animals preserved in the La Brea Tar Pits, in tact bodies found in ice, the entire disciplines of paleontology, archaeology, anthropology, astronomy, climatology, and geology? Are all of these findings probably real? If those scientific fields are considered "junk science," then how does anyone draw the line on deciding what to believe in? What reality could someone be living in to discount all of this clear-cut evidence? Am I taking crazy pills, or is this a little bit suspect?

Well, let's take a look at the perceptions of the validity of the scientific evidence. In a March 2007 Newsweek Poll reporting the same size sample and confidence as Gallup, only 48% of Americans said that the theory of evolution was well-supported by scientific evidence; 39% said it was not[xviii]. Evidence of evolution is speciation; it is mutations in diseases and viruses; it is when plants, organisms, or people become resistant to strains of medicines or antibodies; it is why birds have different shaped beaks; it is why giraffes have long necks or why chameleons change colors[5]. These are all examples of evolution occurring in the present all around us. There's also the fossils and everything that Paleontologists and Anthropologists have discovered, but I think I've already gone over that.

Still, I know you might be thinking, if only 48% percent of the population believe in the scientific evidence, then maybe it should be questioned. Sorry, that's not a valid case against the evidence. Just because everyone thought that the world was flat before it was proven otherwise did not mean that you could probably fall off the edge if you sailed to the ocean horizon. Scientific discoveries are based on the past and present structures and findings. When new evidence is found, the conclusions change and we must accept they changed conclusion. Beliefs of the majority of the population are not necessarily based on anything substantive at all. The majority of the population though Iraq had chemical weapons in 2003, didn't they, and look how wrong they were.

Part 3 - Global Warming

These questions got my wheels turning again, and I thought back to the other issue I had brought up that pits science against, well, not science. That issue is Global Warming. Up until just a few months ago, the mainstream media and the Bush Administration were labeling Global Warming as a debatable issue. People argued that it couldn't be proven. James Inhofe, Senator from Oklahoma speaks loudly on the issue. Arguing that global warming is the, "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people[xix]," Inhofe believes that the issue of global warming was created as a tool to instigate fear in people. I wonder what the color-coded terror alerts serve to do, comfort us?

I broke down how Evolution and Creation are defined in the current debate, so let me take a moment to define "Global Warming" and discuss the overwhelming evidence and consensus surrounding it. I mean I have to give you some reasons to listen to me before I go telling you why the other "side" is... unsubstantiated. Global Warming is a term used to describe the warming of the earth's temperature due to both human and natural causes[xx]. Thought "Global Warming" is the mainstream coined term for what is going on, the term Global "Climate Change" is growing in preference because there are changes in weather and climate patterns are occurring besides temperature increases[xxi]. More simply put; Global Warming refers to the change in the earth's climate that is causing weather patterns outside of what normally would have occurred. You can immediately spot a nonscientific argument against Global Warming, like an argument from oh I don't know, James Inhofe, because they think they've proven Global Warming wrong by pointing out that this year wasn't as hot as last year. It's almost insulting how simplistic that argument is. Does he actually think that making that one claim can refute the work and evidence collected from tens of thousands of scientists around the world? Better yet, does he actually think that all of this evidence could be debunked if one year wasn't hotter than the previous? Wow. That takes a lot of nerve.

Global climate change includes natural factors and processes that already would have occurred and have been occurring without human intervention, AS WELL AS human activities that have contributed to the change. No scientist has ever argued that there are no natural factors to be considered. This is a moot point in science. Of course there are going to be natural factors contributing to the climate change. The next step is to look at what else is occurring along with the natural factors. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[6], that "Hollywood Elitist and Alarmist" organization (according to Inhofe) that won the Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore for their extensive work and research on the Global Climate Change has put out numerous studies, position papers, and summaries of findings to break down their discoveries about human influences on climate change. All reports detail the human factors as they occur with the natural factors. The IPCC has consistently found that the human contribution to the greenhouse gas concentrations has been a very likely[7] cause of rising sea levels, atmospheric pressure, rising temperatures, thinning ice sheets, and numerous other changes[xxii]. It would be splitting hairs to go over every scientific organization that supports the finding that human activity has impacted climate change, and to quote Lanchester, pretty much all scientists agree except for a few "nutters". Even with all of this data, proof, evidence, and agreement between scientists, the public still did not believe that they played much of a roll in the climate change. In fact, a 2006 Pew Research poll tells us that while 70% of the population believes that the Global Warming is occurring; only 41% of the population believes that humans have made a contribution to the warming[xxiii]. It is almost as if those surveyed did not understand the question. In science, it is 100% certain that the earth is getting warmer. With that established, it is over 90% certain that humans had a roll in various aspects of the climate change. Lanchester points out that human contribution to climate change was discussed by IPCC in their first report in 1990, in 1995, and again 2001, all pointed to humans as being contributors[xxiv]. By no means is this a new topic of conversation.

Perhaps it wasn't until the extreme weather conditions began to occur all over the world that people had living proof of what was happening around them. The Tsunami in Indonesia and Hurricane Katrina were two unprecedented natural disasters that were extremely validating for scientific conclusions. The measurable loss of mass in the polar ice caps and relative rise in sea levels is also measurable proof that the earth is in fact heating up. We now knew that something was going on. Establishing that we as people had something to do with it is a lot harder. Again we see people cherry-picking the scientific facts to agree with or throw away.

After Katrina, there were a few more listeners about global warming and the immediate damage that it can and is causing. It was less of an, "I don't have to worry about it because when it happens I'll be long gone," and more of a "holy shit this is bad" kind of situation. The Oscar Winning film, An Inconvenient Truth had a tremendous amount of success at really bringing media attention to the scientific processes of Global Warming and where the human impact played in. Finally people were starting to hear that they might have played a part in the whole mess. Either way, that Pew Research poll said only 41% of people thought humans had any contribution, meaning the remainder of the sample believes climate change is a completely natural phenomenon.

I argue that a human contribution to Global Warming is so widely disputed because it disrupts our entire consumer and over consumption culture. Oil refiners, automobile manufacturers, and anyone who profits based on releasing emissions into the atmosphere are the biggest opponents of the evidence of Global Warming. If automobile emissions lead to increased Greenhouse gasses, and oil companies need us to use gas in our cars to make money, there is money to be lost in supporting a limiting the use of cars. It seems to me that profit motivation might have some role in the matter. Maybe. This past year, Exxon Mobile posted their highest annual profits EVER. Environmentalists (and anyone against the Bush Administration's Oil Cartel) are telling us to cut back on oil consumption, and yet, Exxon charged record prices and earned record profits. People are still consuming. Exxon collected $39.5 billion dollars in 2006[xxv]; do you think they like Al Gore going around telling people to give up their cars and start riding bikes? The oil companies don't want to hear that, but in all honesty, neither do we. If you drive a Chevy Tahoe or H4 around, you don't want to think about the connection between your personal self and the atmosphere a zillion miles above you; it kind of makes you uneasy so you put it out of your mind. As the title of the movie implies, it is inconvenient to have to change what you are used to in order to cut back on emissions. But just a few decades ago, it was also a pain in the neck to have to listen to the science telling us that smoking was bad for us and for the people immediately around us. People were resistant to that change too. It is a total bummer to be used to something one day and then hear the next day that it is bad for you or the earth- how do you think the Styrafoam cup people feel? But it is reality.

In 2005, USA Today reported that, "some 2,000 scientists and more than 100 countries agree that the current warming trend is caused by human activity[xxvi]." It credited cars and coal-burning power plants to be the biggest contributors to the damage. And still there is argument over its credibility. Lanchester of the London Review of Books asserts that this "argument" is partially due to the politicizing of science, a tactic being used more and more by the Bush Administration.

"While the peer-reviewed science on global warming is overwhelming - a 2004 survey in Science showed that of the 928 peer-reviewed papers on the subject, ‘none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position' - the balance in the media has been split almost 50-50 between the scientific evidence on the one hand and ‘skeptics' on the other. On Monbiot's account, the BBC has recently woken up to the way in which it was ‘fooled by these people', which is good news if it is true; but the corporation has hitherto been weak-minded about its reporting of climate change. The ideology of balance has led it to include the ‘other side' of a debate which has, among scientists, only one side; a recent highlight was an appearance by Nigel Lawson on Newsnight, arguing, or ‘arguing', as follows: ‘the whole science is extremely uncertain - that is well known to anybody who has studied it.'[xxvii]"

And there we have it: the issue of Fair and Balance; the ‘two sides to every story,' the myth that the media is simply presenting factual information from which the public can then analyze and form their own conclusion. Not only is it the media's job to check facts and not just report whatever people yell into their microphones, they should also recognize their role in further skewing the issue. Politicizing science; creating a skepticism and cynicism of science based on the presumption that if you don't fully understand something then you might be getting fooled by it; has the consequence of de-legitimizing science. What if this issue does not have two sides? When did it become a threat to make an evidence-backed claim? On one side we have that there are visible holes in the Ozone Layer above regions with higher levels of pollution from auto emissions, and on the other side we have that oil companies don't want their profits to go down by making fuel-efficient cars. Why is this an "argument" we should pay any attention to? James Inhofe claims that Global Warming is a ploy by the Weather Channel to boost their ratings[xxviii]. It is laughable how absurd that comment is for so many reasons. It's like, why should I listen to anything that comes out of the mouth of the person who would say something that ridiculous? This isn't Desperate Housewives were talking about.

Discussion

This brings us back to Evolution versus Creationism; and the idea that there are two sides and two explanations for a scientifically proven and evidence-backed phenomenon. I strongly believe that a distrust in Global Warming is entirely profit driven and based on people not wanting to deal with it, and is not really based in a distrust of science. But I think not believing in evolution really takes a step further of absolutism and inflexibility. When asked how people explain anything on earth that dates back further than 6,000, a Creation believer will say that God planted it to test their faith. Under this train of logic, there is no way to every prove something someone doesn't want to hear or acknowledge because it is not open to contrary evidence. While demanding that all scientific claims be proven with absolute certainty, they are presenting no evidence or proof beyond saying that God caused everything. Not only has God created Mankind, but it is the one and only Christian God that did all of the work. Evidence suggesting otherwise will not be heard by absolutist proponents of this theory.

For many individuals, believing in evolution can co-exist with a belief in God. The absolutists who receive most of the media attention put forth a point of view that is actually not shared by most people who believe in God. Though I am personally skeptical of anyone who doubts evolution, I wonder if it would be easier for people to accept evolution if they were not worried that it questioned their faith in God. Ken Miller, coauthor of the standard High School biology textbook Biology believes, "understanding evolution gives us a fundamentally more optimistic and open view of the world than can those who have placed their faith in the claim that science isn't going to figure out these key questions[xxix]." He strongly argues that faith can co-exist with science, and that in no way does evolution theory seek to limit faith. Believing that scientific evidence proves that man was not created in his present form does not mean you cannot believe in the presence of a higher power. The point of my argument is not to speak out against believing in God or a higher power. I simply want to point out that while believing in a strict interpretation of Genesis is not compatible with biological evolution, believing in biological evolution is compatible with a belief in God. But again, the people with the loudest voices leave the words that we remember most, and the mainstream proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design argue that a main goal of evolutionary science is, in fact, to undermine people's belief in God.

This point of view is a tragic media-misrepresentation, similar to the one that framed Global Warming as an open discussion. The media is not being more accountable by allowing anyone who wants to speak about an issue have equal time, it is only causing issues to become more and more muddled. The other night on CSPAN, two gentlemen were discussing torture as a two sided issue. This is an example of how we as a culture have become completely desensitized by issues. Torture is inhumane, unconstitutional, and wrong. But if tactics like water-boarding that the military uses as dictated by the Bush Administration are labeled as torture, then the Administration is at risk of facing war criminal charges. Torture is torture is torture. It is the duty of the media to reclaim their role investigating and exposing things that the public needs to be aware of. While two experts are sitting on CSPAN talking about water-boarding, people are physically being subjected to this torture on a regular basis. Torture is not an "on the one hand, on the other hand" issue, is it? Will there ever be a limit to what basic freedoms are rights can be taken away under the "appropriate" conditions?

Science is not a political issue. Though sources of funding can be tied to different motivations and goals, science is Science because it follows a standard process and procedure. This process does not change depending on who is in charge at the time of the research and footwork. There are always two sides to political issues, but when and where did science get transformed into a partisan issue?

Discussing the politicizing of science as a new phenomenon must be taken tongue and cheek; I mean, it's the oldest trick in the book. Since man first looked up into the night sky or across the ocean's horizon, the church, formerly the backbone of the government or ruling party, has been vehemently against science. Aristotle, Galileo, Copernicus, name any ancient scientist or mathematician and tell me what happened to him when he started to talk about his discoveries. I'm thinking they all were killed or imprisoned, am I right? Then one day, it became consensus that the world was round and it was impossible to ride a boat into the ocean until you fell off the edge. That science, that calculation, that discovery, to me, is just clear as the evidence discovered by paleontologists to prove evolution or by climatologists to prove Global Warming. Why aren't there people who don't believe in the time as it relates to the earth's orbit, or gravity, or aerodynamics, or in mechanical physics; all of these things are proven with the same science as evolution. They found freakin' bones, for God's sake!

Is the resistance to evolution an assumption that man is inherently superior to beast - that people could never have evolved from a "lesser" life form? Is it a blind faith in the teachings of the bible? Or is it a true skepticism of the credibility of science? Is the resistance to Global Warming derived from that same skepticism, or is it assuming man is not powerful enough to cause climate change? Is man too great or not great enough? I don't know the answer.

The media is the source that we as a society depend on to inform us of what goes on in our society beyond the scope of what we are immediately exposed to. We depend on audio, print, and visual news media to inform us of what is going on around us and in our world. The media occupies a fundamental socializing role which we cannot afford to see compromised. Media consolidation and profit motivation exists whether we like it or not, so it is our duty to not only demand more media accountability, but gather our information from a variety of sources so that we can form an informed opinion. If an issue is being discussed as a two-sided debate, we must look into what both sides are saying from a variety of sources. We must think about here are the claims coming from, who is funding the institutions, who founded the organizations, and why the group is so passionate about having their voice heard. Often times you will find that both sides of the discussion do not warrant the same amount of your time.

I value the idea of the town hall meeting, where democracy thrives, ideas are exchanged, and where everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I know that what I have expressed here are my observations based on my life experience and values, but somebody please tell me what is and is not science because it is no longer clear. The media tells us ten thousand different things in a span of twenty minutes, and we just don't know what to believe anymore. But when we make jokes like, ‘this isn't rocket science' or ‘it's not brain surgery,' are we not referencing scientists and how smart and important they are? I think the story in the bible is a little harder to wrap your mind around than looking at a few bones and fossils. Add a little radiocarbon dating and man- you have a pretty strong case. You don't have to be a brain surgeon to figure that one out.

[1] "institutions" in this context refer to sociological institutions such as religion or politics.

[2] "Religion," in the context of this paper, refers to Judeo-Christian religions, namely Western Christianity.

[3] I will return to this point and address the overwhelming evidence for and scientific agreement about Global Warming later in the piece.

[4] The Gallop poll is based on telephone surveys of a randomly selected national sample consisting of 1,007 adults and reports a 95% confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling or chance error is +/- 3%

[5] Why is this sentence not cited? Because to people that know evolution is true, this is common sense.

[6] The IPCC is an intergovernmental body, established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program to meet to discuss climate issues and publish reports. Their meetings are attended by hundreds of experts, officials, scientists, and researchers who work on the reports with the IPCC. www.ipcc.ch

[7] "very likely" refers to a >90% certainty

WORKS CITED:

[i] Lipps, J. (1996). "The Decline of Reason?" Learning From the Fossil Record, Paleontological Soc. Special Papers 2: 8.

[ii] Lipps, J. (1996). "The Decline of Reason?" Learning From the Fossil Record, Paleontological Soc. Special Papers 2: 8.

[iii] Morris, H. (2006). The Bible is a Textbook of Science, Institute for Creation Research.

[iv] Lanchester, J. (2007). "Warmer, Warmer." London Review of Books Vol. 29(No. 6): p. 222.

[v] Lanchester, J. (2007). "Warmer, Warmer." London Review of Books Vol. 29(No. 6): p. 222.

[vi] Lipps, J. (1999). Beyond Reason: Science in the Mass Media. San Diego, Academic Press.

[vii] Smith, A. M. (2005). "Galileo." World Book Online Reference Center.

[viii] Smithsonian Museum of Natural History (2004). Human Evolution. Resource Guide to Paleoanthropology. H. O. Program, Encarta.

[ix] Gish, D. (2007). The Nature of Science and of Theories on Origins, Institute for Creation Research.

[x] Gish, D. (2007). The Nature of Science and of Theories on Origins, Institute for Creation Research.

[xi] National Center for Science Education. (2005). "Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations." Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools Retrieved 11/7/07, 2007.

[xii] ACLU (2004). Intelligent Design is Religious Argument, Not Science, Say Parents, ACLU.

[xiii] Forrest, B. (2004). Creationism's Trojan Horse. New York, NY, Oxford University Press.

[xiv] ACLU (2005). ACLU Hails Historic Ruling in Dover, Pennsylvania "Intelligent Design" Case. Religion and Belief. ACLU. Harrisburg, PA, American Civil Liberties Union.

[xv] Slevin, P. B. a. P. (2005). Bush Remarks on 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate. Washington Post. Washington, DC: A01.

[xvi] National Center for Science Education. (2005). "Statements from Educational Organizations." Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools Retrieved 11/7/07, 2007.

[xvii] Newport, F. (2007). Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution. G. N. Service. Princeton New Jersey, The Gallup Pole.

[xviii] Polling Report (2007). Origin of Human Life. Science and Nature. P. Report, USA Today/Gallup Poll, Newsweek, Pew Research Center, CBS News Poll: 24.

[xix] Infofe, J. (2005). Climate Change Update. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, DC.

[xx] EPA. (2007). "Climate Change: Basic Information." Climate Change Retrieved 11/7/07.

[xxi] EPA. (2007). "Climate Change: Basic Information." Climate Change Retrieved 11/7/07.

[xxii] Bindoff, R. (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Fourth Assessment Report for the IPCC. W. G. I. Geneva, Switzerland, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 18.

[xxiii] Kohut, A. (2006). Little Consensus on Global Warming. Partisanship Drives Opinion. T. P. R. Center. Washington, DC, The Pew Research Center: 10.

[xxiv] Lanchester, J. (2007). "Warmer, Warmer." London Review of Books Vol. 29(No. 6): p. 222.

[xxv] Hargreaves, S. (2007). Exxon Posts Biggest Annual Profit Ever. CNN Money. New York.

[xxvi] Parker, K. (2005). Let Logic Join the Global Warming Debate. USA Today: 1.

[xxvii] Lanchester, J. (2007). "Warmer, Warmer." London Review of Books Vol. 29(No. 6): p. 222.

[xxviii] Inhofe, J. (2007). Weather Channel Ratings. Fox and Friends. Fox News Channel.

[xxix] NOVA, P. (2007). In Defense of Evolution. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. P. NOVA, PBS.