#PaulBroun #Science? #Farce #HouseScienceCommittee

How is it that congressman Paul Broun (R, GA) remains on the House Science Committee? Watch this video and explain to me how this man, an M.D. no less, is qualified to sit on any panel where science is the subject:

Hurray for his faith. I have no problem with people professing a deep faith. But this man claims that he’s found evidence in the scientific record that says the Earth is only 9000 years old. There are several possibilities here:

1. He’s a faithful man with good intentions. Fine. Good intentions should not land you on any committee with “science” in the title. You should have some chops to back up your placement on the committee.  In that case, he should be removed from the committee.

2. He’s not a good man and his placement on the committee is a bit of cronyism designed to hinder any significant advancement of our country’s scientific agenda.  In that case, he should be removed from the committee.

3. He’s suffered some sort of mid/late life brain spasm that causes him to mix-up the worlds of faith and science (or perhaps he’s always been this way). My suggestion would be to put him on a “faith” committee where he seems to want to be anyway. Science is evidence driven. His belief that “evolution and the big bang” are lies straight from hell–well, that’s just about as far from evidence driven as one might get. In that case, he should be removed from the committee.

Please pass along the word to your friends. Congressman Paul Broun should not be serving on the House Science Committee unless he can thoroughly explain his comments in this video to the scientific community’s liking.

If voices like his are to lead us into the scientifically complex decades to come, our country is doomed.

Here is a link to the House Science Committee’s Website. It is clear from my reading of this site that Broun has no place voting on issues of scientific concern.

http://science.house.gov

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “#PaulBroun #Science? #Farce #HouseScienceCommittee

  1. Time for a new period of enlightenment on this planet. Wonder how dark these dark ages will get before the pendulum starts to swing back?

  2. First off, even though generally accepted, evolution is not a proven fact. Proven facts don’t exist in science. Evolution is a scientific hypothesis, meaning it has some proof, but is lacking others. There are actually problems for it, such as the lack of sediment on the ocean floor, comets, earth’s magnetic field, and dino fossils with blood cells still intact.

    Secondly, about your “good intentions” thing, they can get you somewhere. Good intentions gave Obama a Nobel Peace Prize. (I’m not saying they should, but they do get you places.)

    Third, him being on the committee is not a hindrance, but rather a different perspective on things. Just because he isn’t mainstream doesn’t mean he doesn’t deserve to be there. When Pasteur disproved the “Law” of Spontaneous Generation, he sure wasn’t mainstream.

    Finally, I, like him, believe that science and faith are intertwined. I believe the Bible’s account of a 6-day creation, and the world-wide flood. Am I suffering from some brain spasm? Don’t blame my age; I’m only 15. It is possible to not believe the big bang and evolution, and still have a scientific worldview. We look at the same evidence, and with our idea of how things happened, try to fit that evidence into our theory, rather than letting the evidence speak for itself.

    So I respectfully argue that he should not be removed from the committee, but that he represents many, such as myself, who do not believe in the theory of evolution. I believe that his ideas are actually not far from the evidence, but that the evidence fits better with the creation and flood accounts in the Bible.

    Lucas

  3. Hey Lucas… thanks for your cool-headed reply. And thanks for reading, too. Obviously, I disagree with most of what you posted. Evolution, while not a law like gravity, is supported by the vast majority of scientists. The analogy that I like to use is this: If I thought I had cancer and I went to 100 doctors and 99 of them told me that I had cancer and one of them told me that I had a cold, I’m pretty sure I’d make the decision to get treated for cancer. That’s about the ratio you’d get for scientists who don’t believe in evolution. There aren’t any credible “creationists” coming from the scientific community.

    Good intentions are tricky. The Nazi’s had good intentions during the Holocaust, of course. They wanted to purify their race for the betterment of the whole world. They also made soap and lampshades from the fat and skin of their Jewish victims. So good intentions aren’t something I’d want to hang my hat on.

    I applaud you for your faith, really, and for your cogent argument here, but at 15, I also believed a lot of things that careful study and research later disproved. I don’t think you are suffering from a brain spasm (although I do hold that Broun might be) but I also think you have a world of reading and thinking ahead of you. Maybe your faith will carry you through and you won’t ever come to see the big bang and evolution as true, but I’m an evidence gatherer. The stories in the Bible–some of which were written hundreds of years after Jesus–don’t constitute a scientific manual/text book for me. It may be the greatest story ever told, but most good text-books have updates and new editions. The six day story (which is echoed in many other religious traditions) is, for me, and for the vast majority of scientists, merely a story.

    So, I’d argue back that Broun is a hindrance. I want my national science programs/institutions to be staffed by people who actually believe in science as the scientific community defines them. My post was probably a bit snarky, but I really don’t think Broun does anyone any good by claiming to understand science when he clearly has a more Bible-oriented viewpoint.

    You sound like an intelligent and faithful young man. I commend you for your firm beliefs and recommend that you also read widely from all the fields of science. One book I really like is called The Faith Instinct by Nicholas Wade. He makes a case that religious belief is built into our DNA and it’s a nice look at how science and religion can come from the same basic core of our brain.

    My best to you,

    Clark

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s