The Economist has covered several stories recently that document the ongoing issue of religious objections to various aspects of science. In schools and in the halls of government, these articles suggest, there is a gulf between those who trust scientifically demonstrated facts, and those who feel that ideology or religious belief preclude the acceptance of scientific findings. This conflict has direct economic implications for any nation.
The impact of human decisions on the environment, and therefore on economic health, for example, is potentially very large. These articles in The Economist point up the disturbing potential for that a future population is being nurtured that will be uneducated regarding evolution and scientific inquiry (S.M., Opting out of Evolution: Darwin shmarwin) (S.M., Faith and Reason: Scientists are not as secular as people think).
Such a population will run the risk of failing to compete globally in the marketplace of ideas and innovation. Of greater worry is that they make choices in their own lives or in the leaders they elect that could destroy the environment through ignorance or willful rejection of science on religious or ideological grounds S.M. of The Economist, in an article titled “Opting out of evolution” describes the situation in Missouri’s school system, where a bill is proposed that would all allow parents to keep their kids out of class when evolution is discussed. As the article points out, this is a bit different from asking that one’s child be offered a virtual alternative to actual animal dissection, or even from excluding one’s child from sex education.
Evolution is so fundamental to life sciences that to stay out of a class whenever it is discussed would mean not taking the course at all (S.M., Opting out of Evolution: Darwin shmarwin). Not understanding the life sciences places people at risk for not understanding issues that affect their own life, for example health, and nutrition.
An entire generation of leaders who do not understand, and even reject evolution and science generally, could wreak a disheartening degree of damage on the environment and, thus, on the economy.
The article “Faith and reason” describes the way that current leaders who dismiss scientific thinking address key issues such as global climate change. As an example, the article discusses Illinois Congressman John Shimkus, whose committee assignments relate to the environment. He interprets the Biblical covenant after the Flood as meaning that the human race is protected from rising waters.
He maintains this opinion although the promise in scripture appears to say that the Creator will not wipe humans out again, not that humans cannot ever wipe themselves out through carelessness, greed, or ignorance (S.M., Faith and Reason: Scientists are not as secular as people think). Based on his interpretation of Scripture and his rejection of scientific evidence, this leader is not likely to support any moves to prevent further encroachment on economically important regions of the country such as New Orleans or parts of Florida.
One impact of not appreciating science is that it will place the USA (or any nation that pursues this course of action or inaction) at a disadvantage in comparison with other countries that take science seriously and teach undiluted biology to their students.
The world needs scientifically trained people to achieve all the innovations that beckon. If the USA or any country is not producing well-trained scientists, this will place them behind the rest of the world in invention and development of new technologies. This will put them behind economically.
The other impact could be very direct and very deadly. If citizens and their leaders do not believe in science, they may not take action to mitigate environmental catastrophe: for example, slowing carbon emissions. The result for the country could include worse agricultural disruption than those that current drought conditions have imposed. This will impact the economy drastically.
These articles alert readers to what could be a growing trend. Religious or ideological challenges to learning about evolution could deprive a generation of students of scientific training. These individuals, if in positions of power, can make poor decisions with wide environmental and economic results.
Works Cited
“Faith and Reason.” The Economist (n.d.). Web.
“Opting out of Evolution.” The Economist (n.d.). Web.