Santorum: Americans Must Challenge Science — With Biblical Dogma

Rick Santorum says that Americans should — but don’t — feel comfortable challenging science, and instead rely on biblical dogma and teachings. Santorum takes two of the most scientifically-settled concepts known to man: evolution and climate change, and says that just because ninety-something percent of the world agrees that both concepts are true and correct, there’s no reason to accept them as fact because here in America, we have our bibles and our faith.

In a Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed titled “The Elephant in the Room: Challenging science dogma,” Santorum writes:

A recent Gallup poll found that only 14 percent of Americans agreed that “humans developed over millions of years” and “God had no part.” A Zogby poll this year found that 78 percent of Americans agreed that schoolteachers “should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.” The same poll also found that 86 percent of self-identified liberals agreed that “teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory.” But the scientific “community” claims there is no controversy, and that debate should be banned.

First, Rick, point to me where the scientific “community” has claimed there is no controversy, and that debate should be banned. You can’t can you?

Of course, when it comes to science, well, why should we use science? Why trust scientists? We should look to God and religious leaders — not to scientists and those trained, often for decades, in scientific exploration and the pursuit of knowledge and truth, right, Senator?

This reminds me of bible-thumping Senator James Inhofe, who last week told Rachel Maddow he was angered that his grandchildren are being taught in public schools “nonsense” climate change information provided by the EPA. Inhofe stated that people should trust elected officials — not lifetime civil servants — when it comes to important matters like knowledge and science.

Of course we should trust lawmakers who have to pander to millions of Americans — often uneducated or undereducated – to get elected and re-elected, as opposed to, say, scientists at the EPA whose jobs are dependent upon how well they do at their jobs — just like you and me.

Seriously, this is where Santorum is taking America: facts are not important. Proof is not important. What’s important? God’s word, and how much you believe in something. It’s the anti-reality of George W. Bush all over again. Or, if you will, the faith-based community vs. the reality-based community war Santorum is fighting daily.

And what are we really talking about?

Via Wikipedia on “Reality-based community“:

The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove):

The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Scary?

You betcha.

Now, remember, Santorum was a U.S. Senator for Pennsylvania, until he lost his seat by a huge margin. One commenter — probably a former constituent — writes on Santorum’s anti-science op-ed:

Just because one “believes” or “doesn’t believe” doesn’t make something true. Science isn’t conducted by opinion polls. It is painful to realize this man once represented Pennsylania in the U.S. senate.

Another:

OMG. The consistent ridiculousness by Santorum in his weekly column justifies every bit of criticism he gets. This particular column comes from an ideology based in denial of facts. Something the extremists on the right, like him, seem to embrace more and more as the party shrinks and becomes politically marginalized. It is why no one takes them seriously. They appear in the media because they are freak shows, not serious or credible contributors.

And still another:

It is hard for me to improve on some of the educated comments above. I will add, however, that Mr. Santorum uses a common ruse of language where he places all criticism of objective truth in the same box as conjecture and “belief”. He uses all the following vocabulary in reference to science that signals religious faith: dogma, heresy, High Priests of DarwinISM. recant, vow, ideology, Pharisees. And what does he use for his main argument for supporting objections to evolution and climate change science: POLLS of what Americans believe. His anti-intellectual attack on science is breathtaking. Science does not depend on “believing” anything. It depends only on concrete, empirical evidence. If new evidence clearly disproves or illuminates former conclusions, then science accepts that. That is how scientific inquiry works. Only religion uses terms like “heresy” when discussing disputed positions. Santorum is comparing apples and fire plugs. He cannot be taken seriously when critiquing science.

Remember, these are likely his former constituents. What does that say about how Americans might feel about a President Santorum?

Writing, “I refer, of course, to the latest scientific non-controversy, man-made global warming,” Santorum then attacks reality and ignores facts all over again:

Climate change’s Pharisees reassure us that the global-warming science is still settled. Never mind recent revelations of gross misconduct on the part of Britain’s Climatic Research Unit. Never mind its repeated refusal to release vital climate data. And never mind the legitimate questions that climate-change skeptics have been asking for some time. There’s nothing to see here; move along.

Um, actually, Rick, those “revelations of gross misconduct”? Totally disproved. Twice. At least. Maybe more.

And talk about living in a bubble, Santorum adds:

Given this uncertainty, I think most Americans find the experts’ cocksureness unsettling. Despite the bravado and billions of dollars in media hype supporting the climate alarmists, only 37 percent of respondents agreed that man is causing global warming in a recent Rasmussen poll.