The above is modified from mel gibson’s infamous anti-semitic drunken rant with the word “jew” replaced with scientist, the point being to illustrate that the other sentiment (similarly echoed by fundamentalists) is just as insane though the people promoting the science version are actually stone sober at the time.
A lot of evangelists are militantly anti-science and actually seek to vilify science as the root of all evil. Here are a few examples:
(There are many more similar books)
The following was said on a religious tv program by Ben Stein promoting the Intelligent Design “documentary” Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed which claimed scientists who disagree with evolution were being “persecuted” and that evolution was responsible for the holocaust.
Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.
Crouch: That’s right.
Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Crouch: Good word, good word.
The bulk of the “science is evil” propaganda centers around evolution due to the organization which is leading the Intelligent Design movement which produces a lot of it having the stated ideology that belief in god basically causes everything good, and not believing in god causes more or less everything bad, and (according to them) science is the reason people don’t believe in god therefore science must be the cause of everything bad, including wars, genocide, racism, slavery and so on. The whole ideology is stated here in an actual document from their organization. They focus on evolution primarily because they want to use it as the “sharp end of the wedge” to destroy science and replace it with science which “promotes christian values” (quoting the manifesto). This is why the bulk of the anti-science stuff is directed toward evolution.
In the manifesto they state their view thusly:
“The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences. Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art.”
Clearly scientists like sigmund freud, charles darwin and karl marx (???) caused the holocaust and invented racism. Setting aside that racism, genocide, slavery etc and the antisemitism hitler utilized existed long before darwin published his book and that actually a lot of stuff other than science went into the holocaust, in reality darwin was explicitly anti-eugenics as stated in On The Origins Of Species (will give quotes if asked in the comment section trying not to make this too long, I’ve posted about that before) and his writings and any that agreed with them were actually banned in nazi germany, probably for this very reason. What about Freud? Well, he lived in nazi germany, I’ll let him tell you how his views were received:
“What progress we are making. In the Middle Ages they would have burned me. Now they are content with burning my books.”
This was not an intellectual, scientific society:
Freud’s comment about them burning his books in the streets came before he narrowly escaped nazi germany with his life only because the german officer charged with hunting him down and imprisoning him felt bad for him and secretly let him go. His four sisters all died in concentration camps.
Clearly these were the men responsible and leading the charge.
But lets be fair to the “science is the root of all evil” hypothesis and ignore the crackpot fringe people and their version of it for a second. The two main criticisms of science (at least applied science, ie technology) is that it makes war more deadly (which it does) and it creates pollution (which it does). So lets examine that.
Firstly, pollution. While yes technology does cause pollution we have a laundry list of cleaner technologies, many of which have existed since the early days of polluting technologies. Electric cars were sold commercially in the model-T days but were not as popular because the batteries were more expensive than gas, just as today, and the windmill technology used to generate clean energy today predates the use of electrical energy by oh just about two thousand years. It’s not the fault of science that we don’t embrace good technologies when they’re handed to us on a platter.
(“Modern” technology)
What about warfare? Lets ignore the sociopolitical and economic reasons for war and just assume off the bat that every war is caused solely and exclusively by “too much darn science”. So the wars of the last century over the entire world caused how many deaths? Maybe 200 million ballpark? Lets just say half a billion to be fair. The dwarf wheat, invented by Norman Borlaug, just one scientific advancement, saved over a billion lives in much less time. Water purification technologies are expected to save another billion in the coming years in the third world where people don’t have access to clean water. So already the ratio of helpful to harmful effects of science is shrinking, even if we admit science unilaterally causes all war and that the wars of the last century have killed more people than they probably have, and that’s without even going into medical science. Scientists irradicated smallpox which killed between 300,000 and 2 million people a year. Science is the reason you don’t get malaria like you get the flu and if you do it has a 1% chance of killing you, not a 25% chance of killing you. 1 in 3 people will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetimes, science is the reason that isn’t an automatic death penalty for 1 in 3 people.
Do I even need to go on? I mean fuck if the only upside was air conditioning it would be hard to call.
agnophilo 
Awesome. Though Evolution-deniers could certainly school us in the use of Godwin’s Law. Pharyngula is missing the mark on that….oh wait….not real logic…. 🙂 Sorry to pick out a tiny part of this to comment on, but 1.) I die a little on the inside whenever I read anything about Ben Stein, and 2.) The rest of this is well-played and I have nothing substantial to add.
I dunno, I’m gonna side with Ben Stein on this one. After all, only like half the contestants on his show won his money.
weird@GodlessLiberal – old school
I’ll rec this, but it’s pissing in the wind. Evolution and Darwin are the scapegoat for all the evils in the world especially when someones pet beliefs/fantasies are threatened by the reality of science. Like I told JT on one of his latest posts, ‘it’s fruitless to argue against religion and those ignorant enough to believe it against the fact of scientific discovery, it’s the people who exploit that ignorance for greed and political gain that we need to fight. You just can’t change those that refuse to learn, so why even try.’
Liberal Hollywood has been vilifying science for decades. Again, this is an example of liberals blaming themselves on Christians.It is a fact that any scientist who questions evolution or global warming gets black balled.That’s because science, like education is owned by liberals. And liberals do not tolerate dissent.
@NoGraySunflowers – I didn’t know about godwin’s law, thanks : ) And yeah sorry to bum you out.@GodlessLiberal – Heh : )@Da__Vinci – If you can’t change the sheep, the sheep shearers will always be in business. I prefer to think that people can change, if only generationally – and this is evident in europe and even america. Look at the difference between younger and older generations if you want proof. Social change just usually is so slow and gradual that it seems like we’re standing still, when we’re constantly changing. Like evolution actually.@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – How has hollywood been vilifying science? And even were that true, what does it have to do with this blog?As far as scientists being blackballed simply for disagreeing with global warming or evolution, this simply isn’t true, and it’s because it isn’t true that our understanding of both have changed a lot. What is discouraged in science is promoting ideology as science without empirical support, which in science is simply outright fraud.
i love that the conversation took place on a TV show something that would never have happened without science. were it not for science the participants would probably never have communicated with each other to arrange to meet in the first place unless they lived in caves next door to each other. racism and religion? in their published study professors from Notre Dame and Harvard found “Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics.” the study also found “They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.” let’s also not forget that Hitler made use of Catholic ideas to get people to rally around him. we see politicians use religious terms and “dog whistles” all the time to do the same. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html
@agnophilo – It’s ok. The mood rebounded by the time I got to “Do I even need to go on? I mean fuck if the only upside was air conditioning it would be hard to call.”Also: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Internet_Law The root of all creationist logic. You’re welcome.
@TheSutraDude – True, though I think the tea party is too diverse to generalize about – but racism is definitely in there.@NoGraySunflowers – Those are funny : ) My favorite I think is:”those who egregiously announce their imminent departure from an Internet discussion forum almost never actually leave.” Though I already knew poe’s law.
@agnophilo – Mine is Danth’s “states that anyone who declares themselves victorious, has probably done so because they’ve lost.”
@agnophilo – there is some diversity but the tea party is not as diverse as it’s leadership likes to claim. the tea party is also not a new movement. it’s a rebranding of the social conservative movement. anger over an African American in the White House together with the organizing and funding capabilities of certain corporate sponsors such as the Koch brothers of Koch industries who have their own agenda fueled the movement.
@TheSutraDude – I may be outdated in my terminology but is the Tea Party largely composed of the former paleoconservatives? Or am I thinking something else?@agnophilo – Have you seen thunderf00t’s youtube video responding to Ben Stein on this matter? He does a hell of a job really giving Stein a what-for.
@QuantumStorm – i can’t answer you there. i’ve read they are largely composed of social conservatives, that it is basically the same movement under a new name.
@agnophilo – If you haven’t noticed how Hollywood has demonized science then I have no power to explain what it totally obvious.I am not the one who says scientists get black-balled for coming out against global warming or any other hoax pushed the Left.Scientists say it. The way funding is apportioned says so.
@TheSutraDude – I am going to tell you what the Tea Party stands for so you don’t have to wonder about it anymore.The Tea Party believes in America as it was founded. PERIOD!!THAT’S IT!!It’s that simple.
Science certainly does not start all the wars, but it sure builts the deadliest weapons, not to mention making a killing off of killing. Make no mistakes about science, every party is guilty, covered in blood.
@NoGraySunflowers – Very, very true.@TheSutraDude – It may have (and probably did) start out as the “get the nigger out of the whitehouse” movement, but once they say they stand for x, y and z long enough and more people sign on, it becomes hard to tell why everyone’s there. I’m just saying best not to paint people with a broad brush. I don’t support the movement though, and I agree that it’s been co-opted by all of the people and groups you mentioned.@QuantumStorm – I think I saw it back in the day.@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – Translation “I am declaring my claims are true rather than supporting them with evidence and examples when asked”. Time-wasting nonsense as usual.@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – They’re gonna need a lot of horse-drawn carriages, a few million slaves and some smallpox blankets for any indians if they can find them.@jaydedheart – You know that bomb factories are a tiny, tiny part of even applied science, right? And I don’t think you read the blog…
@jaydedheart – That’s like saying if a guy is guilty of killing an innocent person with a gun, we should throw the gun company in jail, too.
@QuantumStorm – Well to be fair if you make weapons pretty much solely designed for killing people, you are arguably doing something immoral. But not nearly every scientist is a bomb technician.
@agnophilo – That’s the key though – it’s still arguable. And yeah, not every scientist is a bomb technician. I wonder, though, if events like the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or have been partly to blame for some people’s hostility towards science.
@agnophilo – I have not declared anything. I have just stated the obvious. Such movies as Night of the Living Dead, all the plague movies, 2001 A Space Odyssey, all the nuclear apocalypse movies starting in the 1950s, the X-Men movies, Fringe, Surface, certain Star Trek episodes, the Outer Limits, the Twilight Zone.All those movies have very strong anti-technology, anti-science themes.Also, my posts debunking global warming and evolution all had links to actual scientific data.
@agnophilo – i understand it’s not good to paint people with a wide brush. it’s a judgment call. i was posting and reading comments every day on newsvine during the 2008 campaign and election. the racist comments coming from those who were beginning to form as the tea party were appalling in this day and age. when i began to see the images from tea party rallies of posters of a black man depicted as a monkey, images of nooses, together with the birther rhetoric and it’s underlying meaning, “he is not one of us” bolstered by the many fake certificates fabricated and swiftly posted on the web as “proof” Obama is not one of us, none of it surprised me. although it’s not right to assume everyone in the tea party is a racist you see people who are possibly not racists standing metaphorically arm in arm with those holding those posters. it would be an important enough issue for me to not associate myself with those rallies. so although you’re right. it’s not good to use a wide brush it’s also not good to overlook this undercurrent. according to the study i mentioned and quoted from above, tea party members have a lower regard for immigrants and blacks than even the rest of the republican party. that is a polite way to say there are racists.
Isn’t GI Joe vs Cobra a science-based war?Or anyone vs Hydra?
@QuantumStorm – Not quite, but that leads me to ask you how you feel about gun control? Are you urked when you say that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people?” If you do, then you should be urked by your own implication of scientists as “guns.”Regarding scientists, it’s one thing to be a tool of someone’s work, it’s another to build a tool for someone when you know what they are going to use it for. There’s no surpise when a jet fighter is used, or a bomber, or the missles and bombs on them. The history of warfare is very clear, very brutal. No, scientists are not the gun being thrown in jail, they are the dealer on the street that sells the gun to the gang banger. Yes, scientists are quite a guilty party.
@agnophilo – Tiny is an understatement, like saying all the lives killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan and so on are “tiny.” To be clear, i didn’t say that science only had one purpose, or provided no actual value. But your defense of science is essentially the “collateral damage” arguement.
@jaydedheart – “Regarding scientists, it’s one thing to be a tool of someone’s work, it’s another to build a tool for someone when you know what they are going to use it for. “However, you don’t know how they will MISUSE it. There’s a difference.” No, scientists are not the gun being thrown in jail, they are the dealer on the street that sells the gun to the gang banger. Yes, scientists are quite a guilty party.”Why? Because they partook in the creation of something that may be used or misused regardless of their own intentions? By that argument, you could say that everyone is a guilty party because (1) our tax dollars go to the education of said scientists, who then go on to build these weapons, and (2) a portion of the money that we spend buying products eventually helps fund R&D which may result in inventions that can be used for harm. So, if you want to avoid guilt, stop buying things and stop paying taxes. Simple.
By the way, the other problem you have here is that this same arguement could be applied by someone who believes in god. “Even if god was to blame for every death, not just of war, but every death, he/she still gave every person life. He/she still led to all the joy, all the cures, all the….” so on. We all see what we want to see. Don’t you see?
@QuantumStorm – Unless scientists skipped out on all of their history reading, they know what they are creating is, sooner or later, going to kill someone who did nothing wrong. It’s going to kill a lot of someone’s who did nothing wrong but, as they say, “be in the wrong place at the wrong time”. Just like the dealer selling the guns to the gang banger, he “doesn’t know how it will be misused.” I mean, who knows, maybe the person buying the gun is just buying it to protect themselves, right? Yes, EVERYONE is responsible. One’s guilt depends what one was done about it. But I think i did state that there are many guilty parties.
@jaydedheart – Okay. So, by your argument, we should stop all scientific endeavors for the fear that things will be misused. Yes?
@QuantumStorm – Scientific endeavors that commonly lead to mass murder, yes.
@jaydedheart – Define “Commonly”. What is the cutoff point? And what if those same endeavors lead to discoveries that save human lives?
@QuantumStorm – I think, without getting all technical, most items are created with a specific set of purposes. If that set of purposes includes mass killing, there’s not much room for uncertainty.Any endeavor that takes one life to save another is not a worthwhile, or just cause. That, i would say, is playing god. No person has that right to decide who lives and who dies.
@jaydedheart – Items that are created with a specific purpose can sometimes be used for other purposes too. A lot of the technologies that go into creating weapons also have civilian applications. Not to mention, you would still have to demonstrate that all war is inherently immoral, or that every weapon developed is necessarily developed for mass killings or anything that would be ethically questionable.
@QuantumStorm – My evidence is every bloody body in human history that has been killed via invention of weapon. You can count the bodies, if you’d like. We’ll all have passed our time by the time you’re done counting the pieces of evidence.You are very religious.
@jaydedheart – There have been countless humans who have killed with their bare hands, too. That requires no “inventions”. Let me know when you’ve made a relevant response to my comment.
@QuantumStorm – I never said there was only one way, or one instrument, through which injustice comes. The guilt of other parties does not relinquish guilt from the one which is on trial. Or, simply, two wrongs don’t make a right.
@QuantumStorm – I say you are very religious because you look at science in the same infallable light that the praying man looks at his god. Yes, bad things happen. But it’s all part of sciences plan. You don’t need to look at science that way to appreciate it’s usefulness. As a matter of fact, you’d be doing science a much greater justice to hold it to the same light that you might hold bearers of gospels and korans and other texts.
@jaydedheart – Just let me know when you want to return to the topic at hand and wish to stop jumping to conclusions about me and my background. Kthxbai.
@QuantumStorm – What conclusion about you would i be jumping to? All i do know is the manner in which you’re looking at science right now. I’m ready to continue the conversation at any time, i never stopped, but the ball is in your hand. I did offer you an answer. Why you chose only to respond to my second comment out of the latest two, you would know.
@jaydedheart – You do not know the manner in which I am looking at science right now, nor is that relevant to the discussion at hand. Please try and focus. You have not demonstrated how all scientists whose inventions may or may not be used in ethically questionable ways are as guilty as those who use them as such. Are there scientists who intend for their inventions to be used in ethically questionable ways? Of course. But can you demonstrate that all scientists who engage in weapons research wish for their inventions to be used in ethically questionable ways? Because by your argument, anyone who misuses someone else’s invention would then damn the inventor.
@QuantumStorm – It’s relevant from my perspective, which is of course why i mentioned it. There’s several reasons for that. One being, that i do sense us going down a road where you will defend science to no end. But also, while this conversation is between us, i’m sure it’s something you understand as well as i do that we’re speaking on a public forum, where we may be read by at least a few others. No words are an accident. Everything is placed for it’s potential consumption, not just by eachother.”You have not demonstrated how all scientists whose inventions may or may not be used in ethically questionable ways are as guilty as those who use them as such.”Well, now you’ve changed the question from guilt to level of guilt. That varies from case to case, if we were to address that. But, again, that’s a totally different question. I’m not willing to go the “lesser evil” route with you.”But can you demonstrate that all scientists who engage in weapons research wish for their inventions to be used in ethically questionable ways?”I can’t demonstrate the intentions of every scientist’s heart any more then you can, i can only demonstrate the repetitive results of scientific work on weapons, declare science’s hand in the crime via this, and draw such conclusion from the fact that scientists tend to be educated, that this is not merely a matter of ignorance. To excuse science of culpability is to excuse the general who sends in the troops on the mission from his desk in Washington and it comes back that they wiped out a school of children in the process, or raped and pillaged, or tortured. Maybe you can do that, but i can’t.
@jaydedheart – It may be relevant for your own edification, but it is not to this argument. Again, please focus on the argument at hand.Are you sure you understand the concept of guilt here? Because there is a difference between being a contributor to something, and sharing in the guilt.Actually I’m still addressing your hasty generalization of all scientists who engage in weapons research. My apologies if it was unclear. Your analogy is flawed. Did the general intend for his troops to wipe out civilians, rape/pillage or torture? If not, is he guilty for their actions? No. Did he contribute to the circumstances under which those actions occurred? He contributed in the sense that he ordered the troops there, and that is the extent of his contribution. If he did not order or intend for those troops to engage in such activities, then he is not guilty of those acts.
@QuantumStorm – We’ll have to agree to disagree about what is relevant and what is not. It’s already said, so i guess there’s no point in carrying on about it any further.I would assume all human beings are versed in the concept of guilt, having all undoubtably felt it at least here and there in our lives. I’d say that may be the one thing we are all experts on(perhaps, maybe we’re beginners in that, too). There’s nothing hasty about my generalization. Which, yes, is a generalization but we are talking in terms of a general being, if you will, Science. So there is no other way then to begeneral about it. If science is the whole of it’s parts, then it, as i’ve stated, is quite a player in the ever running morgue factory that is warfare. My analogy, when attached with my previous statement of how one’s future actions can be judged based upon knowledge of the past, seems quite precise to me. If the general didn’t understand the history of warfare, and the likihood that things would getout of hand, then he or she should not have been given the position of general in the first place, seeing as they slept through the entire history of warfare. Likewise, science is guilty for continuing down a road which has failed time and time again. This doesn’t deter science, though. More scientists in the United States go into weapons research(or, if you want to use euphimisms, defense research) then any other field.
@GodlessLiberal – Oh, you’re so right 😉
@jaydedheart – You’re arguing against warfare technology, not science. One uses the other, but they aren’t the same thing. Don’t confuse one for the other.
Do not forget the burning of witches, and healers.
@GodlessLiberal – Come on, now. That is a field of science, and several other fields of science connect to it, really. I’m amazed at the hypocricy that most people show in order to defend their blind following of what ever their god is. If i switch the word “science” with religion, your statement would read “You’re arguing against warfare technology, not religion.” And from what i’ve read of your posts in the past, you certainly don’t separate religion from the unrighteous acts it gets twisted to aid. This is why i can’t take sides, because you’re all doing the same thing to eachother. But there shouldn’t be any sides, anyway. Sometimes i have to remind myself that hypocricy knows no kryponite.