Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Are Christians “opposed to science” or are we trying to prevent a suicide?


From apologist Evan Minton at Cerebral Faith:

Often, you’ll hear atheists and anti-theists say things like “Christians don’t believe in science” or “Christians are anti-science!” or “You can believe in God or you can believe in science, but not both.” or “You can believe in The Bible or you can believe in science, but not both.” Atheists claim to be the champions of science and they deride Christians and Christianity for being opponents to science. But, in order to respond to the secularist’s claims, one has to ask a very important question: “What do you mean by that?” It’s one of the questions of The Colombo Tactic, a debate tactic talked about in Greg Koukl’s Tactics: A Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Convictions.

What do you mean by that? What do you mean by “science”? What definition are you ascribing to that term? Because how the secularist is defining “science” will determine whether or not I agree with his claims. In my experience debating atheists on the internet and in real life, I have found that “science” can mean many different things to many different people, and when they claim “Christianity and science don’t mix” or “God and Science don’t go together” or “You can believe in The Bible or believe in science, but not both”, while all of the atheists are using the same words and are phrasing their arguments the same way, they don’t actually all mean to convey the same message. More.

Yes, what exactly do the critics think science is supposed to be? How gender theory harms pets? Why algebra is racist?

Okay, that’s pretty far out. But what about current loopy trends in cosmology and consciousness studies that can lead only to the conclusion that 1) there is no meaningful Out There out there and 2) We couldn’t understand it if there were. But we can, of course, legislate against opposition to trendy prevailing views. And that’s becoming an increasingly accepted goal.

Christians tend to be modern rather than post-modern. Prior to believing that the evidence supports our views, we believe that evidence is real and that it matters. The post-modernists gaining traction in the sciences do not believe that.

See also: Post-modern science 101: How gender theory harms pets

Johnny Bartlett on why we should teach algebra

The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

Post-modern science: The illusion of consciousness sees through itself

Bill Nye would criminalize dissent from human-caused global warming claims.

White cliffs. Dover: Creationism invades Europe


Nature: Stuck with a battle it dare not fight, even for the soul of science. Excuse me guys but, as in so many looming strategic disasters, the guns are facing the wrong way.

KF @ 12: Well said. Truth Will Set You Free
F/N: I find that, quite often when atheists and fellow travellers say "Science" they in fact mean ideological evolutionary materialistic scientism. A very different thing. KF PS: Lewontin is a classic case:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making "our" "consensus" the yardstick of truth . . . ] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
rvb8- Courts do not get to decide what is and isn't science. Judge Jones was fooled by a literature bluff. Ken Miller's testimony has been shown to be BS with respect to blind watchmaker evolution producing IC. Minnich and Behe- the ID experts- testified that ID does not require the supernatural. ID's victory is in the evidence. Before during and after Dover irreducible complexity remains a mystery with respect to blind and mindless processes. The judge ruled against the school board because they were religiously motivated. Which, to me, doesn't make sense as science doesn't care about anyone's motivation. And science cannot be defined by legislature nor can it be decided in the Courts. ATP synthase is physical evidence for ID. And guess what? There isn’t any evidence that blind and mindless processes could produce it. The same goes for the genetic code and all other biological systems and subsystems. Now you can ignore that, prattle on and then quote-mine me, but every here still knows better. Look you have no clue as to what the evidence is. All you are doing is blindly and mindlessly parroting what someone else said- someone you think actually knows, some authority. But where is the evidence? Why is it that you just blindly accept that living organisms arose from recycled dirt carrying minerals dissolved by water (just cuz it could)? But heck with science as long as there are scientifically illiterate judges who are easily fooled. What happens once the public finally understands that Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution and the real debate and controversy is much more detailed than that? The faults and fallacies of Dover have been exposed and written about. I would cite them for you but it wouldn't do any good. So just keep telling yourself someone actually demonstrated ID isn't science and your position is. Just know that it is all that you have. ET
ET @9, entire unedited transcripts available at 'talkorigins'. You are right of course, that was the defense's entire strategy. To maintain ID was science. They lost the case, ID was deemed religious by science, scientists, and confirmed and supported by the courts. In fact Scopes was ID's last victory, with a punisning fine of $100, later overturned. Becareful with Dover, cross-examination blemished a few reputations. And before you say, 'the reputations' of Miller and plaintives, please at least peruse the transcripts; don't cherry pick, I, and others will know. They are unalterable, historical documents. "everyone else here knows better." I'm sure you do; read the transcripts. rvb8
No, evolution has all the physical evidence, that is why it is the driving force behind ALL meaningful biological research.
You are sadly mistaken. For one Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution, so all you are doing is equivocating. And for another no one uses blind watchmaker evolution for anything. It is a totally useless concept. If you read the Dover transcripts you will read the ID experts testifying that ID does not require the supernatural. Again, Creationism is a subset of ID. Even if it is falsified ID is not. And if you were to falsify ID then Creation also falls. ID does not stand or fall on the Bible. One can be a Hindu and be an IDist. Agnostics and atheists- just not materialistic atheists- are also welcome. Judaism, Buddhists, the list goes on. ATP synthase is physical evidence for ID. And guess what? There isn't any evidence that blind and mindless processes could produce it. The same goes for the genetic code and all other biological systems and subsystems. You can ignore that fact and continue to prattle on but everyone else here knows better. ET
D_f_O, @6, "To wit, only a rational,(have you seen the universe?), knowable, (how can we know?), reliable, (have you seen the universe?)purposeful, (but only for Christians?)" ET @7, 'we have plenty of physical evidence..' No, evolution has all the physical evidence, that is why it is the driving force behind ALL meaningful biological research. ID is a thought experiment. Actually much older than evolution, and intuited by almost all, probably all ancient cultures. That is until we realised intuition and reality make strange bedfellows. ET @7, "on a mission to equate ID with Christianity." You make it sound difficult. Read the "Wedge". Read the Dover transcripts and witnesses time and again perjuring themselves. Oh and read the indented post above. Oh and asauber @1, 'some just don't like "Christians"'. rvb8
rvb8- ID is about the DESIGN and we have plenty of physical evidence for it. And unlike you and yours we even have a methodology to test our design inference. And the only thing that annoys me are morons on a mission to equate ID with Christianity. ET
Rvb8, your monkey religion, since it lacks any evidence whatsoever along with the suspension of critical thinking and all common sense also requires enormous amounts of faith to make your belief system work. By your logic then, you and the other darwinian zealots are the biggest science deniers of the lot. humbled
ET, do you want definitive proof of God? If you had it, faith would be destroyed, and I would gladly join your ranks. I'm not being pugilistic here, it is merely that God is beyond science, as is any deity. I think you're just annoyed that the article is just one more 'smoking gun', (as if since Dover, or 'The Wedge' we needed any), that ID's God is Christ, with a hat tip to Yaweh. rvb8
Science depends on physical evidence in the material world, on testable theories (hence the multi-verse has obvious problems), and repeatable experimental results.
Hence materialism, and its bastard child evolutionism, have obvious problems. ET
Yeah, why are we singling out Christianity? I would suggest any faith based belief system is anti-science, because it's faith based. If NEWS would like to include the silly feminist, and other articles she cherry picked as faith based, I have no problem with that. Science depends on physical evidence in the material world, on testable theories (hence the multi-verse has obvious problems), and repeatable experimental results. Religion specifically fails here, you can not test for God. He may exist, or He may not. However the evidence for a deity living beyond the physical constraints of time and space, is far, far more improbable, than one that does. Science can't test for Him, therefore trying, is inimical to science. rvb8
As demonstrated by some commenters on this blog, some just don't like "Christians" and almost all of their view of what they think the universe might be is based around that. Andrew asauber

Leave a Reply