JLVernonPhD presents "American SciCo"

A great deal of controversy has been stirred by the recent video footage of U.S. Representative John Shimkus (R-IL) (possible future chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee) in which he states that we should not worry about climate change because God promised not allow the Earth to be decimated (again).
For those of us who are concerned about the role religion will play in policy decisions that will likely emerge from the new Republican-led House, this is a frightening message coming from a political leader.  Some argue that the sentiments expressed by Rep. Shimkus are no different from those of the Taliban in Afghanistan.  These folks make the point that those who choose to ignore science in this way puts the fate of mankind in the hands of an omnipotent invisible power.  This is no different whether one refers to that supernatural force as “Allah” or “God.” 
I have come to the conclusion that scientists should avoid debates between science and religion that are argued on terms of faith.
Instead, when developing a response to these types of comments, scientists must decide which part of the idea presents a worthwhile concept to rebut on scientific terms.  In addition, and perhaps more important because religious folks believe that one cannot have moral virtue without religion, scientists must communicate the personal values that are associated with the scientific position.  It is incumbent on scientists to make it clear that their position is morally defensible. 
In doing so, scientists can force the religious individual to measure his own moral position.  If the scientist is successful in communicating a moral justification for his position, then the religious person cannot simply reject the science as amoral. 
I generally try to prevent a science debate with religious folks from going directly to religion.  Science cannot address issues of faith, therefore it is practically impossible to utilize evidence-based arguments in these situations.  It is more effective to stay on the evidence-driven field of play and incorporate my personal moral beliefs for why I feel the position is justifiable.
Through these types of debates one will ultimately come to the conclusion that individuals have value systems that fall on a spectrum of beliefs that range from purely individualistic and hierarchical to extremely egalitarian and communal.  In many cases, the scientific position is more consistent with the egalitarian view point and this puts the scientist at odds with the individualist (which is what we are facing with the libertarian Tea Party). Surprisingly, despite the messages in the Bible that one would assume would promote egalitarian viewpoints such as “love thy neighbor”, “do for one of the least among you”, etc., religious fundamentalists in America tend to side with the individualist values system.
Dan Kahan addressed these two types of value systems in a Nature article.  
Here is a quote from that paper in regards to the climate debate:
“People with individualistic values, who prize personal initiative, and those with hierarchical values, who respect authority, tend to dismiss evidence of environmental risks, because the widespread acceptance of such evidence would lead to restrictions on commerce and industry, activities they admire. By contrast, people who subscribe to more egalitarian and communitarian values are suspicious of commerce and industry, which they see as sources of unjust disparity.”
At this point, I find myself asking the questions, “So, when are these values instilled? And, do we have a right to try to influence those values at their earliest stages of indoctrination?”  To me, this implies that we would be interfering with the parent/child relationship because these values are passed from generation to generation through parenting styles.  Suddenly, we are venturing into an ethical dilemma.
The bigger question is, “How do we mitigate the negative impact of those whose value systems conflict with those of science and the egalitarian?” Clearly, mitigation is less appealing because it implies that the scientific position will be compromised, but it allows us to avoid the ethical problem of disrupting familial relationships.  
Recently, a paper was published that proposes that there may be a genetic determinant for liberal tendencies.  This implies that there is also a genetic determinant for conservative tendencies.  Therefore, these values conflicts are the result of genetic differences.  
If there is a genetic component to these problems, how do we proceed?  And, how do we use science communication methods to serve “our” perspective best?