The new religion?

Religion has a reputation for being dogmatic and inflexible, and even persecuting those who do not subscribe tho their doctrines. There are two partly connected groups who are betraying some of this tolerance in extreme measures.

The first is the scientific lobby which attacks "creationism" with something of a so-called religious fervour. Here creationism means the belief that God created the universe in six days/periods, with all creatures fully developed, as recorded by the book of Genesis. Perhaps I have been guilty of over simplification of this tenet held by some Christians.

Recently the witch hunting resulted in the removal from office in the Royal Society of a scientist who did no more than say that if in science lessons a student raised the subject of creationism it would be appropriate to discuss the subject briefly in class. The vehemence with which certain scientists attack any "unorthodox" teaching suggests that they are motivated by more than open discussion of science. The dismissed officer does not subscribe to the "heresy" and was merely advocating that it be discussed when and if it arose.

My understanding of Karl Popper and others is that any scientific finding cannot be proved, and but only held "pro tem", in other words all scientific findings have a certain provisionality about them, that as yet no investigation has succeeded in dis-confirming the theory. It might be expected, then, that scientists would have a little more tolerance and humility. Of course as Kuhn has suggested (apparent) attacks on the existing paradigm are likely to evoke violent reaction on the part of those who have lived with and defend it.

So far suspected apostates have not been burned at the stake, but some who have dared to utter the word "Creationism" have been the subject of some vituperation.

The same fate has befallen those who have dared to challenge another area of science, namely global warming. Until recently there did seem to be a rise in global temperatures, and evidence which has be used to bolster the cause and include mankind and carbon as the cause has often been sought and then "adjusted".

The point I am making here is not that the theory is wrong, - most of us are not in a position to analyse the evidence or see where it has been misused. For the moment we could adopt the position that warming is occuring and that mankind is the cause.

The point here is that for some people, scientists and non-scientists alike, "global warning denial" is about on a par with "holocaust denial" of "creationism advocacy". It is true to say that global warming, if true and if likely to proceed at the rate claimed from forecasting models, is an imminent potential danger which must be taken seriously.

Those who question global warming and its cause have come under attack, even if or because of evidence they offer which the zealots seem to ignore. Christopher Booker and others regularly produce evidence which is awkward for the theory.

Both causes show certain traits of totalitarian control which occurred under Communism, - condemning those who sincerely think differently, perhaps even thinking of them as in need of treatment or behaviour modification, and certainly trying to suppress what opponents say.

There is no meeting of minds, a complete absence of calm discussion, merely the attempt to dominate people who do not share the received faith. In both the anti-creationist condemnation of deviants and in the shouting down of those less convinced about global warming, there is the intolerance of the bigot. The bigot seeks to use whatever pressure he can find to force people to share his own conviction.