Because God, is why! Or Santorum's Prebuttal.

While reading Paul Krugman's Op-Ed piece, Republicans Against Science, I couldn't help but think of some comments made a few days ago by former Senator Rick Santorum:

We are going through this debate right now by somebody who’s in the Republican field talking about people who believe in certain scientific theories, whether it’s global warming or evolution. And somehow or another if you believe that we are creatures of a loving God, that that is somehow anti-science,” Santorum said. “It’s not anti-science. It’s an affirmation of what we view in the world. Which is, we see God." (Emphasis mine.)

Most creationists seem to make a point of using the word "theory" in a way quite different from what is meant when one says "scientific theory". "Theory", the way they use it, is just an idea that one might believe in, the way one might believe the CIA killed JFK, or that the moon landing was faked.  Scientific is much more authoritative--such as the germ theory of disease, or the theory of gravity.  A theory in science is not an affirmation of belief, but the most coherent explanation of observable facts not yet disproved. Understanding and accepting a theory isn't an exercise in belief, but Santorum's  comments show a reaction to the claim of being "anti-science" as if the charge was an attack on his and other Republican's beliefs for not accepting (or understanding) the scientific theories.


Looking a bit closer at his affirmation, and the reason for my emphasizing "we see God", it seems as if the converse is implied: if we accepted the science, we would not see God. I don't know if this is intentional, or if the implication is more along the lines of: and those other people who do believe those scientific theories (presumably such as Mr. Huntsman*) do not see God.  It seems like an absolutist position.  You're either Team God or Team Science, and that's it.

The reality is much more complicated.  People may fall anywhere from absolute atheism to absolute faith in a higher being on the theological continuum, without its having any bearing on their faculty for grasping and dealing with scientific concepts at all. The claim that the Republican Party is currently anti-science isn't an attack on faith or on the various tenets of current conservatism--but an acute criticism of whether evidence has any effect how any given Republican might respond to a situation--from ideology, or from facts?  I would no more trust someone who doesn't notice that it's been getting hotter with the environment than I would trust a child with someone who thinks lead is an important part of a nutritious breakfast.

That facts matter should be common sense--but where ideas are held not as intellectual findings but articles of faith, deviation from the set of "politically correct" opinions becomes heresy.  I'm not sure what can be done to encourage the Republican heretics to kick open the conversation on science--but for what it's worth, I give Huntsman credit for his affirmation of reason.  It's a start.

(*Which leads me to the not entirely idle speculation that this impression was not at all unintentional, but a backhand against Huntsman that's about on the level of those "weird" criticisms re: Mitt Romney.  What did he mean by that, exactly?)