Sunday, October 30, 2005

Do creationists hate hybrid cars?

I make this post with a little tongue-in-cheek. Nonetheless, I read an interesting article the other day called, Is US becoming hostile to science? Ultimately, the article focuses on creationism versus evolution and it asserts that a significant percentage of Americans don't believe in evolution, nor the big bang, and many have become quite hostile towards science.

Similarly, an interesting video on CNN Video titled, America's Negative Numbers, notes that the U.S. has dropped to 28th in math compared to other countries and 22nd in science.

Is it any wonder China and Russia are sending men into space as America watches?

While I don't want to get into the debate between creationism and evolution, I have to admit that I believe in the power of science, but I also believe in god. To me science is simply the reproducible understanding of nature, and reviewing just the last 100 years it is hard to argue against what science has accomplished.

Some creationists that I know not only dismiss evolution, but also global warming and the dangers of oil dependency. Since hybrid cars are utilized by many as a solution to both global warming and oil dependency, then hybrids are equally dismissed as unnecessary.

Many bright bloggers and writers might argue that the dismissal of hybrids isn't due to a dislike of science, but is about simple facts. They argue that clean diesel or bio-diesel is a more affordable solution.

While I agree that both clean diesel and bio-diesel are significantly better options than our current path, I do not agree that either, by themselves, go far enough nor match the potential of hybrid technology. Additionally, the hybrid powertrain can accommodate both clean diesel and bio-diesel engines. Moreover, experimental hybrid technology demonstrates that even conventional vehicles can be converted into hybrids that can achieve well over 100 mpg. Consequently, it becomes obvious that the potential of hybrids has barely been tapped.

Neither bio-diesel nor clean diesel have demonstrated anywhere near such potential. Thus, while bio-diesel and clean diesel are important technologies, hybrid bio-diesels and clean diesel hybrids are even far more important technologies.

Is it a realization gap, rather than religion?

Is the problem that science and technology, much like evolution, isn't always visible via huge steps, but rather small incremental steps? For example, I have been using laptops for more than 10 years. Year after year, the performance of memory, speed, and battery power increases. From year to year the gains don't seem terribly significant, but comparing today's laptops to the laptops of 10 years ago, demonstrates that we've made amazing strides.

In my opinion, especially based on available, experimental technology, hybrids offer that same kind of potential, at a cost that is significantly less than fuel cells. That doesn't mean fuel cells won't replace hybrids, it just means that hybrid technology is important enough for investment until the many obstacles surrounding fuel cell vehicles can be resolved. In actuality, it might just be hybrid technology that resolves many fuel cell problems.

Yet, if America neither embraces nor believes in science and technology, what is the future for hybrids, for fuel cells, and for America?

The American auto industry might be an example of the path that America is taking. Decades of materialistically driven engineering and marketing have left GM on the verge of bankruptcy, as Ford continually becomes less and less significant. Appearance and useless power, not technological innovation, have been the drivers of the American automarket.

Likewise, if you work in technology, then you know of the void that exists in America when it comes to filling technical jobs - we have to import our programmers, engineers, and scientists. In America too much attention has been put on law and entertainment. We'd rather sue, act or be a professional athlete, rather than a scientist, engineer, or astronaut.

This has to change. As the population of the world booms in the next hundred years only pandemics or science can keep us moving forward. The world's demand for resources is growing so rapidly that only the death of billions and billions of us will allow us to move forward, or we can use science.

Somehow, America and the world must resolve our religious and scientific differences. Both god and science can co-exist. Our religious beliefs and values shouldn't hold science back, rather they should be used to ensure that we use science to benefit humankind, rather than to just control and profit from humankind.

Still, America's scientific problems aren't just about religion, as there are plenty of godless Americans that do not value science.

Ultimately, however, I believe that it is the religious Americans that will be the difference. If god is the ultimate creator, than science is nothing but an expression of god, an expression that should be embraced for good, not denied out of fear.

In recent years I've noticed a number of bumper stickers on the backs of luxury vehicles and SUVs that say, "Jesus was a liberal." While that might be true, Jesus would today drive neither a luxury vehicle, nor a gas-guzzler, Jesus would drive a hybrid.

Labels: , , , , ,

6 Comments:

Blogger who cares said...

While I respect, understand and generally agree with your opinions on the use and proliferation of hybrid technology, I don't agree mixing religious personas with present reality (such as suggesting Christ would drive) helps in winning your argument.

10:20 AM  
Blogger Dahcredyns said...

If I offended you, I apologize.

It's hard to address religion and normally I wouldn't, but based on the two sources that I referenced, I wanted to give it a stab because I think science has an extremely important role to play in the world's future.

I was in the Midwest about a week ago, so much of my post was based on a conversation that I had with some devout creationists. Those creationists didn't believe a basic science education was necessary, nor did they believe in global warming.

In their eyes, I was the fool for believing the "liberal press" and a Hollywood wannabe for hybrids.

While I can understand that someone might believe in creationism, I was shocked by the complete dismissal of science, and I think that is an opinion that has to be discussed.

As for suggesting what Christ would drive, that was just a play on a bumper sticker that already exists and it was made "tongue-in-cheek".

10:57 AM  
Blogger Big Ed said...

True Christians reject the materialistic bias of the Capitalistic Republican Laissez Faire Leaders of America. Despite the Pro Christian rhetoric of those in power, they are basically hypocrites who only care about money and power. Of course, if Liberals weren't so antagonistically anti-Christ and Christian moral values, it would be easier for true believers to accept the Biblical principles of stewardship, which implies wisdom in managing of resources. However, a Christian would never worship nature, would never value an animal or plant over a human being, accept premeditated abortion, or most of the other vile practices of the left. It is too bad, there aren't more moderate Christians who speak today.
Al

12:49 AM  
Blogger Dahcredyns said...

Big Ed,

I love your statement, "It is too bad, there aren't more moderate Christians who speak today."

Somehow moderates have to make their voice heard - whether we're talking about religion or politics. We are the majority, yet we give too much power to the extremists.

6:09 PM  
Blogger Halo9x said...

Here's my 2 cents. I believe God created the universe, science may understand some aspects as to how He did it and may even duplicate some of the parts of creation. We've done nuclear fission but fussion seems to still be a dream, the Sun made by God does this daily. We can send probes out into space and we have gone to the Moon but have dificulty solving other more pressing problems here on earth.
So, as a follower of Jesus I appreciate what science has done and the ingenuity of man, yet we continue to kill unborn babies and call ourselves civilized. We now seem to want to kill them as they come out of the womb! Good thing this wasn't an option in 1950 or I might not be here. I was a month premature and they seemed more interested in keeping me alive vice killing me.
I drive a Prius because it saves gas and money. I do believe we might be experiencing global warming due to the Sun vice us. The Sun is going through increased activity and it now looks like global cooling may be on the way. By the way, Greenland was named as such by the Vikings because it was warm and a nice place to live before the ice cover came about 1,000 years ago.
Science is nice and even helpul but it doesn't answer the more interesting questions such as why am I here, where am I going after this life, how can I get along better with my neighbor and many other important questions that concern the process of living. Jesus came to save us and show us how to live. Science can do neither. So, no...not all creationists hate hybrids.

9:32 PM  
Anonymous SCIENCE AND SCIENTIST - Inquiring into the Origin of Matter and Life said...

We thought you might be interested --


SCIENCE AND SCIENTIST
Inquiring into the Origin of Matter and Life
January-March 2008

Bhaktivedanata Institute's latest quarterly newsletter
is now available online.

You can download the January-March 2008 issue from:
http://scienceandscientist.org/current.php

______________________________ ______________________________ __

What's it about?

Modern science has generally been directed toward investigating
the material world, excluding consideration of the conscious
scientist who is essential to the whole process, since, of
course, the very existence of the scientific endeavor itself
depends upon consciousness. Complete scientific knowledge must
consequently include both objective science and subjective
consciousness.


In addition to other programs, Bhaktivedanta Institute's Science
and Scientist Newsletter is humbly offered to inspire scientists
and scholars to contribute their sincere efforts toward
developing this grand synthesis. The result will be valuable not
only for helping to better understand the "hard" problems of
science such as the nature and origin of life and the cosmos, the
mind-brain connection, artificial intelligence, etc. But the
pressing problems of ethics in science, world peace, and
interfaith dialog will also benefit from a more inclusive
scientific worldview.


In our modern era science and religion are the predominating
influences determining the fate of mankind. Promoting and
developing a culture of harmony between such diverse fields has
the potential to expand our conception of reality and advance
human knowledge in the new millenium, in which it is said the
study of life will be pre-eminent. Let us welcome the dawn of
that new epoch with great hope and determined endeavor.
______________________________ ______________________________ __


Newsletter Homepage: http://www.scienceandscientist.org


Newsletter Subscription:
http://www.scienceandscientist.org/subscribe.html


Please send comments/questions to:
editors@scienceandscientist.org

7:09 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home