And Why What She Believes is Critical
Is U.S. Rep. McMorris Rodgers (R, CD5, eastern Washington) educationally capable of comprehending global warming (and taking it seriously) or does her use of the words “renewable energy” simply serve as smokescreen to hide full fledged climate science dismissal?
As McMorris Rodgers faces another August primary and November general election it is important to re-examine the core qualifications and understanding (or lack thereof) with which she represents us to the federal government. Today I want to re-visit a telling exchange that occurred four years ago.
Only the first hour of the debate at the Bing in Spokane on Wednesday, September 19th, 2018, was televised. That hour is available to watch here. Another half hour of audience questions followed, questions and answers KHQ did not post. Parts of that half hour I’ve transcribed from recordings made by members of the audience.
Thanks to Bob Gilles (who, sadly, has since passed away) for the following question, which he posed in a very jolly, upbeat fashion I cannot express in print.
Bob Gilles: “What is your take on evolution and science? Do you believe the earth is more like 6000 years old or four and a half billion years old?”
CMR: “I get to go first, huh? [laughter] Well. OK. Ummm. The account that I believe is the one in the Bible that God created the world in seven days. [clapping] …made by His creation… [noise] I’m not here…I can’t say how old the earth is. I believe this is an exciting time for us to be living. I’m proud of the innovation and ingenuity of the American people. I’m proud to be an American. It’s the greatest country [loud clapping]…liberty and human rights and religious tolerance and self-determination. So this is a [murmuring] …and science. And I do believe that we need to…ah…know what the science is, respect the science…I’m battling right now to make sure we use science when it comes to making decisions around the Lower Snake River dams and the Snake River system…[trails off]”
It is a free country. Everyone is entitled to their point of view. The point of view McMorris Rodgers publicly revealed in her answer (a little reluctantly) is consistent with her education. She has never been exposed to the foundations of geology and biology, except, perhaps, to discount the evidence. Her undergraduate degree was taken at the Pensacola Christian College where, among the Articles of Faith, one finds:
We believe that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days, and that God created all life (Gen. 1). We reject the man-made theory of evolution occurring over millions of years and believe that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.
No instructor at such an institution would dare offer an unbiased presentation of the physical evidence for a planet that is three and a half billion years old. (The evidence is not only fossils in layers of rock but also the physics of the decay of radioactive isotopes, the stuff of basic science.)
If everything one is taught begins with the unshakable belief the earth is around 6000 years old (a number calculated based on the “begats” in the Book of Genesis) one must intentionally disregard the bases of nearly all modern science, especially modern geology, continental drift, and, importantly, the geological understanding of the history of climate. (If all ice ages and past documented changes in climate all occurred over 6000 years then everything has to have happened fast. In that mindset modern day concerns over the speed at which climate is changing can be glossed over as unremarkable and natural. That is the sobering background underlying McMorris Rodgers’ analysis, “We’ve been through times when the earth warmed and then also we’ve been through times when the Earth…there’s been more ice on…in the world”.)
It is important to recognize adherence to the idea of a 6000 year old earth is not a majority view in America, probably not even among self-described Christians. Much of Christianity, including United Methodism, the tradition in which I was brought up, considers the biblical creation story to be allegorical: “We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology.” It is worth noting there have been recent (and un-successful) efforts to change Methodist doctrine to an anti-science view. Christianity is not monolithic, and McMorris Rodgers’ views represent only some of those who call themselves Christian. That realization is at the core of her hesitation to directly answer the question Mr. Gilles posed.
Look at McMorris Rodgers’ answer again. She performed an almost immediate hard pivot to the only “scientific” refuge she knows, her claim of a scientific basis for preserving the Snake River dams, the same pivot she employs every time climate change comes up as a question.
We need a representative whose understanding of science is not crippled by her upbringing and education. Her mouthing of words like “renewable energy” ought not be mistaken for a clear understanding of the threat we face from global warming. Even less should her utterances be mistaken for willingness to legislatively support conversion to non-carbon sources of energy.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry