EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson On Religion And Science: ‘It’s Not A Clean-Cut Division’
EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson On Religion And Science: ‘It’s Not A Clean-Cut Division’
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson willingly endorsed the Bush administration’s push to put business interests ahead of his agency’s mission to “to protect human health and the environment.” An extended profile of Johnson published Sunday by the Philadelphia Inquirer reveals that the evangelical Johnson is unwilling — or unable — to separate religion from science.
Johnson — not a Ph.D. scientist — received his bachelor of arts degree in biology from Taylor University, “an evangelical, interdenominational covenant community committed to advancing life-long learning and ministering the redemptive love of Jesus Christ to a world in need.” His Taylor adviser, biology professor Timothy Burkholder told the Inquirer that the school teaches a religion-inflected view of evolution:
We would adhere to the view that God is the creator of all things and in charge of our lives, and I think Steve recognizes that and did from the beginning.
When questioned by reporters, Johnson admitted he does not distinguish a “clean-cut division” between religion and science:
It’s not a clean-cut division. If you have studied at all creationism vs. evolution, there’s theistic or God-controlled evolution and there’s variations on all those themes.
Johnson “declined to express his views” further, claiming his understanding of religion’s relationship to science “as a practical matter has not been an issue” at the agency. However, his inerrant faith that he and Bush are God’s servants guided his decisions. Criticism of his corrupt tenure that grew to a maelstrom this spring left him feeling like he’s “in the fiery furnace” and “Daniel in the lion’s den,” but he decided not to resign after a “providential reading” of an inspirational quotation by Abraham Lincoln about God’s will.
The piece also reveals that Johnson’s rise was due to corporate lobbyist, Republican activist, and Bush fundraiser Charles Grizzle, a long-time friend of Karl Rove. An EPA assistant administrator under the first President Bush, Grizzle took note of Johnson, then a staff scientist, and brought him to Rove’s attention when George W. Bush became president.
Johnson will leave office having tarnished the reputation of the agency, decimated staff morale, and degraded the health and safety of the American public. Condemnation of his tenure is near-universal. Four former Republican administrators — Russell Train (Nixon and Ford), William K. Reilly (George H.W. Bush), Christine Todd Whitman (George W. Bush), and William Ruckelshaus (Nixon and Reagan) all criticized Johnson to the Inquirer for deferring to the president and polluters instead of obeying his sworn oath to enforce the law.
But the Inquirer did find one prominent defender of Johnson — James L. Connaughton, the senior environmental adviser to Bush and lobbyist for corporate polluters. “He was a shining star from the outset,” said Connaughton. “He has done as we would have expected and hoped.”
5 Responses to “EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson On Religion And Science: ‘It’s Not A Clean-Cut Division’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
Oh what now? Is some pastor going to come on the media and tell us that this or that Bible verse tells us to explore a particular form of radiocarbon dating to drill for oil, or to explore some particular metabolic pathway to best advance biology? Well I wouldn’t put it past them if the try, but they should be citing their original sources, not whichever religious scriptures they happen to think will get them the most church donations.
Any intelligent and loving God would want us to use our brains instead of depending on faith. An omniscient God would find clever ways to suggest this, and who isn’t agnostic when the chips are down, really?
Agnosticism is the unsung best bet against Pascal’s wager.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:10 pmIt saddens me to see that as old as humanity is that so many still cling to utter nonsense, superstitions, false idols and gods. The Dark Ages is alive and well.
We won’t survive our own ignorance. What a pity.
I’m afraid that Mr. Johnson could be proved to be oh so wrong by most 5th graders. There is a drastic division between science and religion. Just for grins, I’ve listed the following points that might be considered as valid arguments against Mr. Johnson’s claim:
1 Creationism cannot offer a scientific hypothesis that is capable of being shown wrong.
2 Creationism cannot describe a single possible experiment that could elucidate the mechanics of creation.
3 Creationism cannot point to a single piece of scientific research that has provided evidence for any supernatural intervention into natural law.
4 Creationism cannot point to a single prediction that has turned out to be right, and supports the creationist case.
5 Creationism cannot offer a single instance of research that has followed the normal course of scientific inquiry, namely, independent testing and verification by skeptical researchers, because it has no research program, no hypotheses, and no predictions.
6 Creationists can point to no source of their theory, no basis for their claims, other than the authority of the Bible.
7 Science consists of posting testable, falsifiable hypotheses; making predictions about what is not yet known; performing critical experiments or observations that can disprove certain alternative hypotheses and lend credence to others; seeking explanations in natural rather than supernatural causes; trying to falsify hypotheses rather than to prove them; remaining skeptical until independent investigators are able to corroborate new claims; and subjecting one’s ideas and data to the merciless criticism of other scientists. Creationism has none of these qualifications.
So, there ya have it. Simple stuff, huh?
December 9th, 2008 at 12:55 amJust thought I’d build upon what AustinRanter had to say (above).
On the witness stand at the Dover (PA) trial, Michael Behe admitted that in order for Intelligent Design to be considered as a ’scientific’ theory, the definition of SCIENCE would have to be changed… and that with the NECESSARY CHANGE, we would ALSO be obliged to recognize ASTROLOGY as a ’science’. That change would ALSO admit things like phrenology and numerology.
Science does not ‘prove’ things. ‘Proof’ is for logicians, mathematicians, coin collectors and distillers of alcoholic beverages. Proof in science is applicable only in the ‘negative’ sense… i.e., hypotheses and theories must be ‘falsifiable’. When scientists do experiments (to validate ‘predicted’ results), they are NOT trying to ‘prove’ they are RIGHT… they are trying to FIND OUT if they’re WRONG. NOT being wrong simply builds confidence that one is on the right track… it ‘proves’ nothing.
A scientific ‘theory’ is NOT a guess… it is NOT speculation… it is NOT ‘just an idea’, as the scientifically ignorant seem to think (having been hoodwinked and bamboozled by professional LFJs™ [Liars For Jesus]), in common parlance. Rather, it is an explanatory framework for a set of observed FACTS… a description, or model, of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same sort, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.
Evolution is NOT a matter of ‘faith’ or ‘belief’. It is an observed FACT… in nature… in the lab… in the genome… that the genetic makeup of POPULATIONS of organisms (the ‘gene pool’) changes, over time. NOBODY made that up.
The word for ‘changes over time’ is ‘evolves’. So that is the FACT of biological ‘evolution’… the genetic makeup of POPULATIONS of organisms (the ‘gene pool’) changes, over time (evolves). That is it. That is all.
In science, ‘theories’ occupy a much higher level of importance than mere ‘facts’… and theories don’t MAKE-UP facts… theories EXPLAIN facts. So… the ‘theory of evolution’ EXPLAINS the FACT of evolution… it tells us HOW the genetic makeup of POPULATIONS of organisms (the ‘gene pool’) changes, over time (evolves). In other words, it EXPLAINS the diversity of life on earth.
This is NOT in dispute ANYWHERE within the scientific community. It is disputed ONLY by the scientifically-ignorant and by professional liars.
In order to qualify as valid and ‘scientific’, a theory MUST…
… have explanatory power
… have predictive power
… be falsifiable
The ‘Theory of Evolution’ satisfies ALL THREE of those criteria. Also, it has been in use for around 150 years, and it has NOT been falsified… not once… not ever. That makes it… uhhh… guess what? How about the MOST successful scientific theory… ever. Also… considering the ratio of what is explained (the diversity of life on earth) to the simplicity of the explanation (descent with modification, via genetic drift, mutation and natural selection), it is also the most POWERFUL scientific theory ever… by several orders of magnitude.
Creation science/creationism/intelligent design… possesses only ONE of those THREE mandatory properties. It has tremendous explanatory power. Tremendous because it NOT ONLY purports to explain what the Theory of Evolution explains (the diversity of life on earth)… it ALSO purports to explain what is explained in/by physics… cosmology… chemistry… biology… quantum theory… geology… astronomy… animal husbandry… etc… until you can’t think of anything else.
Essentially, it purports to explain EVERYTHING…
… and that explanation IS… for all intents and purposes… MAGIC.
Magic… that’s the GOOD news. On the bad news side of this equation, we have this…
… it has absolutely NO predictive power. Who knows the mind of god (should he actually exist)? Christian delusionists keep telling us that NOBODY can know the mind of god… so how can they reconcile their ‘theory’ with what they purport to be an holy, divine, cosmic, inviolable, god-given ‘truth’?
Does this presage the necessity for a new cabinet post?… Chief Prophet, maybe?… head of the Department of Omens, Portents and Biblical Interpretation?
… it is NOT falsifiable… and the only (alleged) ‘evidence’ in support of this ‘theory’ is comprised of the myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions of an ignorant gaggle of Bronze Age fishermen and peripatetic, militant, marauding, murdering, genocidal goat herders.
But there’s ANOTHER problem… APART from the fact that ‘creation science’ / creationism / ‘intelligent design’ DOES NOT QUALIFY as a scientific theory… or even as a hypothesis. That is… everything that has been REVEALED to us by science over the past 400 years or so has been accomplished WITHOUT the necessity of appealing to the good offices of an invisible, magical, all-powerful, supernatural sky-fairy.
Anybody who is insufficiently concerned about the fact that there are people like Johnson… and Bush… holding high office in the federal government, should consider what James Watt had to say…
… and then Google for ‘dominionism’.
December 9th, 2008 at 11:21 amThe blurring of science and religion ALWAYS gives me pause for concern. I am not opposed to persons of faith expressing their point of view; I just don’t want to have that point of view dictating national policy. I must say, I knew the republican party has proudly touted its status as the ”anti-intellectual” party, but was a man with a bachelors degree from an evangelical college the best they could muster for the head of the EPA? I wanted to work in public policy, but I suppose holding a masters degree in hydrology would make me overqualified in this white house. How profoundly sad. We should be picking the best and brightest minds, preferably those with doctoral qualifications and years of research, to man these posts. Luckily, the incoming administration understands this. My gift to Mr. Johnson would be a copy of Mr. Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion.
December 9th, 2008 at 11:41 amHow is it that this man is not being pressured to resign? This is absolutely ridiculous. If a Minister of the Environment in any of our allied nations had spewed such stupidity, he would have been out before you could say “talking snake.” Well, except maybe Stephen Harper’s personal fiefdom…
December 9th, 2008 at 5:49 pm