“The Science says” is just as problematic as, “The Bible says”

The usage of “the science says” can be a weapon, often wielded for power or added weight on the scale for making decisions that can take it out of the research lab and placed into the philosophy department. Christians are quick to point out the arrogancy of that statement. However, it’s the same with the use of “The Bible says….” Ironically, both don’t come with their obvious embedded and integrated interpretative legend. Data is data just as words are just words. Neither are contextless. The bits of information must fit within an interpretative narrative or storyline or context that must take into account a multitude of factors. Humility must drive the interpretative process. It’s simplistic to say “the Bible says” as if one can read the Bible with common sense and sound logic and all 7.8 billion people of the earth, from all sorts of religions, come to a unanimous conclusion. That kind of unanimity doesn’t even happen within the entire Christian family (all 33,000 denominations) let alone all 500 members of one church body that meets in one Sunday morning worship gathering. The Bible has to be interpreted. That process is called hermeneutics. Equally, science must walk hand in hand with hermeneutics.; science has to be interpreted. The problem is that where Bible Hermeneutics is often ridiculed by the Science community, science must embrace honest, interpretative practices as well. Everything must be interpreted and neither science nor Bible-believing people must not put their thumb on the scale to push along their philosophical conclusions. Let the data drive the conclusions. (NOTE: I am in no way suggesting that there should be a dichotomous relationship between science and the Bible. Both can be and should be embraced for they explore and seek different answers.)

A new book by a former Obama official raises the need for more examination of the “facts” by the scientific community. He is questioning the hermeneutical conclusions of the science on climate change.

As with any discussion, biblically or scientifically, we need to stop the vilification of opposing viewpoints, strip away the biased agendas (that both sides have), and truly examine the facts, and then humbly offer interpreted conclusions, based on those perceived facts, all the while preparing to be wrong when the facts suggest as much.

The author of Unsettled? writes, “Humans are certainly influencing the climate and human influences are growing ... but beyond a warming of about 2 degrees F over the last century, we don't see many impacts on severe weather events." NYU's Steve Koonin states, "The notion we've broken the climate is somehow misplaced.”

This is not a politically left or right issue: it’s a human issue. We must set up Steelman arguments (seeking full understanding on all sides) instead of strawman ones (assassinating and vilifying the other side’s arguments without really dealing with what their positions may be).

I have not yet read the book. I heard Dr. Koonin on CNBC being interviewed and went to add it to my cart and couldn’t purchase it because it was out of stock.

Check out: Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1950665798/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_0GD6TTVCD7NP9EP76FFB