“Follow the Science” - politics under color of authority?

“Under color of authority is a legal phrase … indicating that a person is claiming or implying the acts he or she is committing are related to and legitimized by his or her role as an agent of governmental power.” (Wikipedia, 13 November 2021) In police work, it generally is applied to a situation when a police officer justifies assault (violence) far beyond the needed level of force. It is often a matter of judgment when this issue is raised.

In Biblical interpretation, many religious scholars, pastors, and pundits are tempted to claim the authority of Scripture for their interpretation of it. As representatives of God, they are called to preach, along with correct, rebuke, and exhort. (2 Timothy 4:2) The 40,000-45,000 Christian denominations in the world speak to disagreements in the past and present. These have included personality clashes as well as disputes about implementation in matters the Bible does not provide implementation details. Rare is the denomination that does not claim the authority of God for their beliefs and practices. Calling out disagreements amounts to claiming that their unique beliefs and practices are legitimized by the correct understanding of God and His word, which they alone possess.

The new kid on the block is science. The phrase ‘follow the science’ is widely used by politicians to claim that their laws and policies are legitimized by science, and everyone else is ignoring scientific findings. It sounds appealing, but… what is science? “Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.” (Wikipedia, 13 November 21)  

The claim of the authority of science is tied to testable explanations and predictions. Easy as this concept is to apply to basic physics, the challenge comes in the complexity of the real world. In doing experiments it is necessary to isolate the phenomenon being tested from all other possible factors. Politicians gloss over this detail in crafting policies based on ‘the science’. An honest statement would have to caveat policy pronouncements with phrases like ‘in my judgment’ or ‘in the judgment of qualified scientists’. This is not to say that the law of universal gravitation is a matter of judgment. Policy issues seldom depend on it. But statistics on the efficacy of a vaccine, mask wearing, social distancing, or lockdowns vary widely because of the innumerable variables involved. 

These politicians want to use ‘the science’ as a kind of trump card to defeat all other considerations, such as limited government and the bill of rights in the constitution. Whether any given measure will work as claimed or not, science does not automatically override all other considerations. Even if vaccines are as effective as their advocates believe, and people are individually better off by getting them, is a public health crisis worth ending the freedom under the rule of law that the United States was established on? Limited government, individual liberty under the rule of law can be eroded by many actions, either by despotic policies from iron-fisted rulers, or by rebellious militias seeking to achieve local autonomy. Anarchy, as described in a previous post on Haiti, arises from hearts not fully devoted to God. But ‘science’-based tyranny claims the acts the tyrant is committing are related to and legitimized by science. What is the risk that these science-citing wannabe dictators are partaking of the spirit described in Isaiah 14:13-14?

I will ascend to heaven;

I will raise my throne above the stars of God,

And I will sit on the mount of assembly

In the recesses of the north.

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;

I will make myself like the Most High.

Any of us could be so tempted.