When did we all become experts on evolution, global warming and international health care?

Giving equal time to different views does not mean that equally intelligent viewpoints are being presented. Consider the case of a Ph.D. evolutionary biologist vs. a man whose faith in God is predicated upon the tides going in and going out.

                 Any society where electoral success is predicated upon dismissal of evolution as "just a theory," global evolution as "pseudo science," and universal health care as a "communist abomination," probably has little to look forward in regards to future governance. Yet this is the situation we confront in America today, one where that which is accepted and promoted by the majority of educated citizens is vehemently rejected by elected officials.

              The outward rejection may or may not be done for political expediency. It is indeed hard to believe that any individual who can attain power through hard work, education and interaction with greater society could hold the myopic viewpoints of those who have abandoned reason and scholarship.

              Whether politicians are sincere or not, one fact remains: elected officials have gained power by pandering to millions for whom the theory of evolution, global warming and universal health care are anathema. A consensus does not always signify absolute truth; however, an affirmation reached by the best minds within a particular field possesses far more credibility than one reached by those who deem book learning as an elitist frivolity. Nowhere is this more apparent than in modern society where some of the most vitriolic attacks against the aforementioned are led by the most uninformed.

             All of us at some point are guilty of weighing in on matters where we possess little, if any expertise. It is an impossibility, given the limitations of the human life span and the human intellect, to become a true polymath. No individual, no matter how gifted, can count himself an expert in all the major disciplines. Owing to these restraints, there are times when we defer to the best and brightest among us. Being mechanically inept, I defer to my auto mechanic; being unschooled in Latin and Greek, I defer to the expertise of a classical scholar regarding translations. These limitations cause me no shame as I am aware that the totality of human knowledge is unattainable for even the most enlightened. What is puzzling is how so many who are so proudly unenlightened across the disciplines have stepped forward as experts regarding matters as thoroughly researched as evolution and global warming. Further confusion is added to the mix when one sees how a matter such as health care  in other nations, which can be researched with ease by anyone, can be so misrepresented. What it all comes down to is how people with no expertise, and no ambition of attaining any level of expertise, seen it fit to weigh in on issues above their professional training. This form of "punditry" is on full display thanks to the information age and it is disturbing.

             There is no reason why a society as advanced as ours should have people who see fit to "refute" the theory of evolution with "if man evolved from apes, how come we still have apes?" This is not a call to eliminate people who ask such questions, as the paranoid might accuse, but rather to find means by which such an embarassing assault on the intellect would be a thing of the past. Willful ignorance is the worst form of ignorance. In a society where the works of experts are freely available and often made more accessible to the layman, one would expect fewer occurrences of such simple-minded "refutations." Yes, discord exists among evolutionary biologists and proponents of anthropogenic climate change, but this discord is not over whether evolution or climate change exists, but rather minor matters within the accepted consensus. These matters are hardly refutations of evolution and climate change in and of themselves.

               Scientists do not expect the layperson to understand the complexity of their entire corpus of work, but efforts are made all the time to simplify and bring the fundamentals of their research to an audience not schooled in this discipline. That such guides for the layman are ignored in favor of hysterical rants by the obstinate and excessively proud is revealing. How exactly does someone who gets his "education" from mainstream news and newspapers scarcely above the level of a tabloid become a leading authority on the "hoax" of global warming? How can someone with no background in science become a leading spokesman against the theory of evolution?

               The fact that so many are so proud to the point where they can second guess experts in various fields is revealing. To which source do we attribute not only this willful ignorance, but a tendency to take on subjects about which they have neither expertise nor interest in gaining even basic competency?

                Moving from the somewhat demanding discipline of science to a subject where information is easily digestible at all levels, one can find find the same mentality applied to the subject of universal health care. Universal health care is the standard for all free, rich nations on this Earth. Despite this universality and our ability to look up statistics, we have a sizable portion of our population who insist on retaining what they have gathered from soundbites. A quick glance at an almanac, a W.H.O. table or a report by the OECD would easily answer all the questions regarding health care in other countries, yet so many rigidly stand by the blatant falsehoods proferred by talk-show hosts with an agenda. This is distressing owing to the fact that many will vote based on what they "know" about health care in countries they cannot even find on a map.

               To some, this article may come across as insufferably elitist. I think that it is the opposite. I believe it to be an invitation to all those who have sealed their minds to seek out credible witnesses and learn truth rather than propaganda. As stated before, scientists are far from infallible; however, what they offer is far more substantial than charlatans with an agenda. Have there been frauds in the scientific community? Absolutely, but they have almost always been relegated to the dustbin of intellectual history. The same treatment should be afforded those without any expertise who nonetheless try to shape public opinion for their own limited gains. Do your mind a favor, seek out those who have studied extensively in a particular field. If you are seeking refutation of a particular theory, find someone who is at the very least educated in the traditional sense of the word. Information conveyed by the ignorant has a way of lodging in the collective consciousness and the result is never a pretty one.