It’s not exactly news that science is under attack by the Christian Right. That’s been happening for decades. Antony Alumkal, an associate professor of the sociology of religion at the United Methodist seminary in Denver, describes the four main sources of the Christian anti-scientism: intelligent design, the ex-gay movement, conservative bioethics, and climate change denial. These are what he calls the paranoid science movements.
Richard Hofstadeter’s classic description of the paranoid style applies to all four of the Religious Right movements, which are advancing paranoid science along with pseudoscience, Alumkal contends. Embracing a dualistic worldview, they also imagine a vast and sinister conspiracy that undermines and destroys a way of life. Apocalyptic conspiracy theories travel more rapidly nowadays via social media. They typically use the either/or fallacy, the slippery slope fallacy, and the straw man fallacy
Fundamentalist resistance to the theory of evolution led to the Scopes Monkey trial in the 1920s. Creation science emerged for a few decades before petering out. The intelligent design movement started in the 1990s. The most prominent proponent is Philip E. Johnson, a law professor who has written seven books critiquing evolution and arguing for an intelligent designer of life.
Johnson writes that Darwinism is not based upon evidence but upon a naturalistic philosophy promoted by atheists. Consequently, he argues, true Christians cannot embrace evolution and its naturalistic philosophy that nature is all there is. It is consistent with the paranoid style to take a dualistic view and to warn of a vast conspiracy to remove God from education. Is intelligent design science or religion? The intelligent design movement is hampered by “its incompatible goals of mobilizing religious conservatives and gaining scientific respectability.”
The ex-gay movement has largely lost credibility, and evangelical pastors preach about it less frequently than they used to. Nonetheless, many evangelicals believe that same-sex sexual orientation can be changed by therapy and prayer. Proponents of therapy to “cure” gays contend the medical establishment conceals the scientific truth about homosexuality.
Exodus International, founded in 1976, was the primary organization promoting so-called reparative or conversion therapy. One leader of Exodus resigned after he started an affair with a man. Meanwhile, Exodus revised its mission to reducing same-sex attraction instead of its earlier claim of converting gays to straight States started to ban ex-gay therapy on minors in 2012. In 2013, Exodus was closed, and the organization’s president apologized to the gay and lesbian community, pledging not to oppose same-sex marriage.
The Christian Right’s movement to promote conservative bioethics is lower profile than its battles over homosexuality and abortion. Their agenda addresses treatment of embryos, germline human genetic engineering, and euthanasia.
A human embryo is a human life, asserts the Christian Right, and therefore has human rights and deserves protection, both from abortion and from being destroyed for its stem cells. But personhood is a legal and ethical matter, not just a biological one. There is no consensus that personhood and all the rights that go with it begins at conception.
The Christian Right warns about a dystopian brave new world unless legal limits are adopted, such as a comprehensive ban on cloning. Regardless of whether a ban ever happens, there will be a new era of eugenics, as parents with money will want to give their offspring every genetic advantage. This could lead to a new human species. It’s not just the religious right making this prediction. Yuval Noah Harari in his best-selling book, Sapiens, writes that the creation of superhumans is inevitable. “Our ability to modify genes is outpacing our capacity for making wise and far-sighted use of this skill.”
Opponents of legalized euthanasia, aka physician assisted suicide, warn of a slippery slope once physicians see their role as ending life. They favor keeping alive patients even in persistent vegetative states. Alumkal points out that the slippery slope is a commonly used argument, buts it’s not a reliable predictor of social change. A police force need not inevitably become a Gestapo, taxation need not become confiscation, and same-sex marriage has not so far led to polygamy.
When it comes to the environment, evangelicals are split. Those on the left and some from the center favor creation care, contending that human beings have an obligation to be good stewards of God’s creation. This approach has been endorsed by leading megachurch pastors Bill Hybels and Rick Warren. Those on the right, however, are organized against the environmental movement under an organization called the Cornwall Alliance, which has funding linked to the fossil fuel industry
They raise doubts about anthropogenic climate change, denying that rising Co2 levels cause harm. As with evolution and sexuality, the religious right mistrusts mainstream science, accusing it of political bias. They claim God made the earth robust and resistant to harm from human activity, and that God will prevent catastrophes. More incendiary spokesmen tie environmentalism to Satan, describing the “green religion” as incompatible with Christianity and hostile to humanity. This reflects the familiar Manichean, good-and-evil, dualistic worldview.
Alumkal asserts that “no one had yet written a comparison of these four movements.” It seems to me, however, that he overlooks BROKEN WORDS: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics by Jonathan Dudley (Crown, 2011). Dudley also examines four scientific areas of evangelical attack, three of which are the same as Alumkal and the fourth one, abortion, overlaps with conservative bioethics. It’s no surprise that the Dudley book does not appear in Alumkal’s references.
Paranoid Science does a good job of describing the leading religious right activists in each of the four areas covered. If the book has a weakness, it is the depiction of the conservative side as completely wrong. The religious right has “nothing of substance to contribute to bioethical debates.” Arguments on social issues typically do not break down with one side being totally right and the other totally wrong. Issues appear black and white to ideologues, but reality is that both sides have weaknesses and make mistakes, not just the side we oppose, and both have something to contribute to the debate. ###