Brooking No Debate: Scientism, Crowbars, and Bats

Breakpoint with Chuck Colson ^ | 1/2/2007 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

The late Stephen Jay Gould at Harvard used to describe religion and science as occupying “non-overlapping magisterial authority,” or what he called NOMA. That is, science and religion occupied different “domains,” or areas of life, in which each held “the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution.”

There were many problems with Gould’s approach, but at least a lack of respect for religion and religious people wasn’t one of them. Not so with some of today’s scientists.

The New York Times reported on a conference recently held in Costa Mesa, California, that turned into the secular materialist equivalent of a revival meeting.

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg told attendees that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief.” According to Weinberg, “anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.”

Another Nobel laureate, chemist Sir Harold Kroto, suggested that the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion be given to Richard Dawkins for his new book The God Delusion.

Continuing the theme, Carolyn Porco of the Space Science Institute called for teaching “our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty.”

In case you were in doubt about which worldview would inform this “catechesis,” she then added: “It is already so much more glorious and awesome—and even comforting—than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.”

Attempts at a Gould-like détente between religion and science didn’t sit well with this crowd. A presentation by Stanford biologist Joan Roughgarden on how to make evolution more acceptable to Christians was disrupted by Dawkins himself who called it “bad poetry.”

After a while, the rancor and stridency got to be too much for some of the attendees. One scientist called it a “den of vipers” where the only debate is “should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?”

Another, physicist Lawrence Krauss, chided them, saying “science does not make it impossible to believe in God . . . [and] we should recognize that fact . . . and stop being so pompous about it.”

Fat chance. What’s behind all of this animosity? It is a worldview known as “scientism,” the belief that there is no supernatural, only a material world. And it will not countenance any rivals. It is a “jealous god.”

As Weinberg’s comments illustrate, it regards any other belief system other than scientism as irrational and the enemy of progress. Given the chance, as in the former Soviet Union, it wants to eliminate its rivals. It is no respecter of pluralism.

But this really exposes the difference between the worldviews of these scientists and Christians. We welcome science; it’s the healthy exploration of God’s world. The greatest scientists in history have been Christians who believe science was possible only in a world that was orderly and created by God. We don’t rule out any natural phenomenon.

The naturalists, on the other hand, rule out even science that tends to show intelligence, because that might lead to a God. Now, who is narrow-minded?

[caffe]

Geology and archaeology--can't find evidence of the flood. GONE!

Astronomy--that big bang stuff. GONE!

Genetics--all those genetic similarities to chimps. GONE!

Radiometric dating--can't get the ages right. GONE!

Biology--all that evilution stuff. GONE!

Paleontology--all those inconvenient fossils. GONE!



You need to check into the psychiatric ward ASAP!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[metmom]

He's very touchy since a lot of the pro-science folks here have been banned by the moderators, following a series of flare-ups on the crevo threads.

Pro-evo would be more correct than pro-science. There seems to be accusation (and misunderstanding) floating around that anyone who disagrees with the interpretation of the fossil record and ToE are anti-science. That's not true. Many, if not most, in the creationist/ID camp regularly state that they're not anti-science, but they're generally not believed when they say it. But who would know better, the person saying they're not anti-science, or the person making the accusations?

[metmom]

BTW, what groups are *Biblical literalists*? I have yet to meet anyone who demands that one has to take the whole Bible as literal or not at all, besides an evo. I know of no religious people or group that does that.

[taxesareforever]

Evolutionistic belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientifc knowledge (Check out "The Case for a Creator, Lee Strobel)

[grey_whiskers]

BTW, what groups are *Biblical literalists*? I have yet to meet anyone who demands that one has to take the whole Bible as literal or not at all, besides an evo. I know of no religious people or group that does that.

It's admittedly a broad brush. By 'literalist' I meant not any particular denomination, but some of the evangelicals who insist that the Earth must be only 6000 years old because of the genealogies in Genesis; and draw the conclusion that dinosaurs must have been in the Garden of Eden.

Some of the more extreme have even chastised C.S. Lewis as being a tool of Satan for incorporating mythological creatures and demi-gods into Narnia. See this site for example.

Or for another example of the kind of mouth-shooting-off, the late Keith Green once wrote a tract denouncing the use of the neutron bomb, because it would be ineffective. IIRC, the tract said something like, "I don't know about you, but if I knew I had only 24 hours to live, I'd fight harder than ever."

Had he even considered talking to a doctor or looking up non-classified sources on the effects of neutron irradiation on the human body?

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

I don't want to start another flamewar here :-)

The issue is that many of the strident pro-evo apologists would post lengthy, detailed posts with links to peer-review scientific journals. The posts were designed to refute specific assertions of some of the cre's, point by point.

Some--not all-- of the pro-cre posters would respond with talking points which had repeatedly been refuted, either on the same thread or on many prior threads.

In particular, the pro-evos got really, really heated up when pro-cres would either

a) cherry-pick misquotes from Charles Darwin or from other evolutionists--even after having the misquote explained
or
b) post 'refutations' of evolution based on basic, elemental misunderstandings of the subject matter

I think one of the problems is that the two sides often talked past each other--when speaking as scientists, many of the pro-evos would use very specific technical terms which would be mistaken for something very different by a non-technical speaker.

Many of the pro-cre's would rely on assertions from a book or sermon they had read, and consider those to be disposative of the whole argument--apparently not realizing that the entire process of presenting, testing, accepting ideas into part of a self-consistent framework, is far different in science than it is for the layperson: and that merely quoting a source and considering that to be proof is anathema to a practicing science, if you want what you are doing to be called *science*.

Clear as mud?

Cheers!

[Rurudyne]

I would add another consideration just for fun:

At the time of the Flood, after it rather, peoples all around the world had settled on a calender year of 360 days.

In their condescension, modern scientist (and especially anthropologist) assume that the error was possibly due to the fact that it is easier to divide a year by 360 rather than 365 and a smidgen.

Yet all around the world peoples made the exact same mistake at the exact time––pretty sloppy of the WHOLE HUMAN RACE.

Of course, the idea that whatever the cause of some catastrophic event which they deny––with vim and vigor yet––may have also caused a shifting of planetary orbits completely escapes them.

It is possible that no ancient made this mistake but that the length of a year has changed.

Oh, and just for kicks consider what has been found at Tiahuanaco (a ruined city on the Alti Plano in South America) ... a calender interpreted to indicate Earth having a moon, 5.9 terrestrial radii away that made 447 revolutions around the Earth in a year comprised of 290 days.

Boy howdy, were those folks ever unobservant nitwits to somehow miss 75 and a smidgen days from their calenders!

Maybe these were just antediluvians who knew perfectly well how long their year was?

[Rurudyne]

Sigh ... I miss Calvin and Hobbes....

[Elsie]

 

Then you can be a Catholic.
Catholicism does not require that one believe Genesis is an anthropology text. It is a sacred poem on creation, an allegory, not a science book. Evolution, Paleontology, Biology, Archaeology? No problem. Science is good. Science tells us HOW God made the world. Catholicism tells us WHY. There need be no conflict.

 

Ok, but...

 

 

Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says.

If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and the New Testament writers,

they have to decide what the following verses mean:

Acts 17:26-27
26. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
27. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

Romans 5:12-21
12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

If there were no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.

If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.

If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.

Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic? Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?

The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.

Acts 17:24-26

24. "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
25. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
26. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

Was LUKE wrong about this?

 

1 Corinthians 11:8-9
8. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
9. neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

1 Timothy 2:13
For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Was Paul WRONG about these???

 

If so, is GOD so puny that He allows this 'inaccuracy' in His Word??

 

[Elsie]

He's writing about God, and saying that Jesus is the Word who became flesh, and is therefore God.

Absolutely True!!!

And when that Word speaks - things happen!

[Elsie]

And it is why Catholicism does not have a problem with evolutionary science so long as evolutionary science does not assert theology.

The problem is that it DOES!!!

Oh, it CLAIMS that it doesn't, but there is no other reason we have these C vs E threads; is there? ;^)

[Elsie]

We must part in disagreement about science and about the Bible, because there is no way to rectify two fundamentally different theological views of God.

Indeed!

[Elsie]

I do so wish Watterson would bring back the BEst Comic EVER!!!!!!!!

[Elsie]

The crevo threads usually started as a general-interest biology or science thread posted by (the now departed) PatrickHenry.

 

 

"Alas, Poor Patrick!

 

I knew him, grey_whiskers: a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rims at it.

Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know not how oft.

 

Where be your gibes now? your gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment, that were wont to set the table on a roar?

 

Not one now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen?

 

Now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, let her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must come; make her laugh at that."

[Elsie]

Pro-evo would be more correct than pro-science.

Indeed!

[Elsie]

I have yet to meet anyone who demands that one has to take the whole Bible as literal or not at all, besides an evo.

Even I, Elsie the Great, with my Scripture posts, don't say this!

[Elsie]

I think one of the problems is that the two sides often talked past each other...

Amen!

[JCEccles]

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg told attendees that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief.” According to Weinberg, “anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.”

Hard core atheists like Weinberg abound in academia. And they take the charge to subvert and destroy religious belief (of the Judeo-Christian variety anyway; Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam tend to get a pass) very seriously.

Federal funding to their institutions ought to be cut off. The government should not be in the business of subsidizing the destruction of religious faith. That is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

[grey_whiskers]

I think one of the problems is that the two sides often talked past each other...

Amen!

To which one of the atheists would have replied, "Ramen." (Flying Spaghetti Monster reference.)

Cheers!