Intelligent Design

How the Doctrine of Original Sin Helped Spark the Scientific Revolution and Why Neo- Pelagianism Has Produced the Replication Crisis

Spread the love

Are the majority of new scientific publications false?  There is very good evidence to believe that is the case.  This short video is must viewing for anyone who wants to know why that is the case.  As our News Desk has faithfully reported these last couple of years, science is beset with a replication crisis. 

A passage in Stephen Meyer’s Return of the God Hypothesis got me to thinking about this crisis and perhaps the reason it arose.  In an early chapter of his book, Meyer discussed why the scientific revolution occurred in Christian Europe and nowhere else.  The reason, of course, is that far from being at war with science as some blinkered revisionist historians would have it, science was built on the foundation of a Christian worldview, as he demonstrates to the satisfaction of any reasonable observer.  But for our present purposes, the part of Meyer’s discussion that caught my attention is his explanation of the role the Christian doctrine of original sin played in the development of the scientific method. 

On the one hand, the entire scientific project is grounded on the Christian belief that the universe is rational and intelligible because it was created by a rational God.  But belief in an underlying rationality, in isolation, did not spark the scientific revolution.  After all, the Greeks believed in an underlying order, but the revolution did not occur there.  Indeed, it could be argued (as Francis Bacon did argue) that science was stymied when, for over a thousand years, it was stuck in the cul-de-sac of sterile Aristotelian rationality divorced from empirical observation.

Here is the part that grabbed my attention.  While belief in an underlying order was necessary, it was insufficient for the modern scientific method to arise.  To escape Aristotle, scientists needed to understand the limitations on the project imposed by their own fallible human nature and the vital role of confirming empirical experiments.  In other words, the doctrine of original sin was crucial to the development of science.  This is how Meyer sums it up:

Such a nuanced view of human nature implied, on the one hand, that human beings could attain insight into the workings of the natural world, but that, on the other, they were vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and prematurely jumping to conclusions.  This composite view of reason—one that affirmed both its capability and fallibility—inspired confidence that the design and order of nature could be understood if scientists carefully studied the natural world, but also engendered caution about trusting human intuition, conjectures, and hypotheses unless they were carefully tested by experiment and observation.

Meyer, Stephen C.. Return of the God Hypothesis (p. 38)

There is a heresy known as Pelagianism (see here for Wikipedia’s article on that heresy), which, in very brief summary, rejects the doctrine of original sin and holds that humans are born as infinitely perfectible blank slates. 

So what does all of this have to do with the crisis in replication?  Just this.  While scientists talk a good game about skepticism and self-correction, it seems to me that the replicability crisis is a direct result of scientists retreating from the Christian doctrine of original sin and hewing to a variation of Pelagianism heresy.  The default position with respect to every scientific finding should be “that is probably false and I won’t believe it until the finding is replicated.”  This seems to be the exact opposite of what we see to be the case among most members of the scientific community.  Scientific conclusions are often accepted uncritically on the basis of only one experiment.  For obvious reasons, this should never be the case, especially when the finding is consonant with the zeitgeist. 

Someone once said that the doctrine of original sin is the most empirically verifiable of all Christian doctrines.  There is a lot to be said for that conclusion.  And that means, given what we know about human nature, scientists (and the rest of us) should be far more skeptical and less willing to accept new findings than we have been. And this is especially the case if we want the conclusions of a study to be true, because that is when our susceptibility to confirmation bias is at its greatest.

PS:  Here is an excellent video debunking the false “warfare” thesis.

20 Replies to “How the Doctrine of Original Sin Helped Spark the Scientific Revolution and Why Neo- Pelagianism Has Produced the Replication Crisis

  1. 1
    Barry Arrington says:

    Of course, I do not mean to imply that scientists are self-consciously Pelagian. That would be silly. I mean that their understanding of human nature is more consonant with the Pelagian outlook than with the orthodox Christian outlook. And that leads them to be less skeptical than they should be.

  2. 2
    News says:

    Now that you mention it, Barry, I would have thought that the COVID Crazy has clearly shown that vast numbers of scientists are much less skeptical than they should be.

    Why were scientists claiming that it was perfectly okay for kids to go without a year’s schooling and/or wear masks in school for two years (which greatly interferes with learning the relationship between facial expressions and speech)?

    Why would scientists claim that Black Lives Matter rallies were really important to continue but Trump rallies were deadly … yet they DID. As if the virus cares! A host is a host, right? If it is a live human body instead of a dead one… yum. Those scientists can’t really have explicitly wanted Black Americans to die so the only reasonable interpretation of their position is that they knew that their own claims were nonsense – and persisted anyway.

    Why would anyone (do you really have to be a scientist in this case?) believe that having everyone at the shopping plaza wear an unwashed (maybe for weeks) designer mask was going to deter pathogens?

    Yet “scientists” blithely affirmed all that. We need to ensure that they have by no means heard the last of the fallout and pushback.

    I haven’t even gotten into the many questions raised by the vaccines and the regimes mandating them. I chose, just now, to focus on nonsense that should be apparent to a Grade Seven student in elementary school.

  3. 3
    jerry says:

    Scientists are humans and do not necessarily care more about the truth than others. Their image used to be that but not anymore.

    So they will lie and distort with the best. We have seen in the OOL and Evolution debate. Why should it be different with anything with the least bit of political influence.

  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    Science cares about the truth in the sense it’s looking for explanations which best fit what we observe.

    True believers have no need of science because they have already been vouchsafed access to The Truth by their God.

    They have no need of those pesky masks or vaccines because, as a number of pastors have proclaimed, their faith or their Lord will protect them – before they and members of their flock died of COVID-19.

    They look back with longing to the days of the Black Death – the bubonic/pneumonic plagues – which swept through Europe in the mid-1300s. The people back then weren’t confused by vaccines and masks because no one had any idea what caused it, let alone what might be effective in treating it. Basically, all they had were folk remedies and prayer, lots of prayer. That worked so well that around 50% of the UK population died of the Plague and somewhere between 30-60% of the entire population of Europe died of it.

    But Christians will tell us it was God’s benevolence and mercy that allowed 50% to survive. That would be rather like the heartwarming parable about about the passenger who escaped dying in a plane crash because God caused his alarm clock to malfunction. It never occurs to them to ask why God could not have extended his mercy to the other people on that flight and prevented the tragedy and all the suffering and grief that followed.

    But of course the nonsensical Doctrine of Original Sin was devised to try and get around such thorny questions.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    As to: “Pelagianism,,, rejects the doctrine of original sin and holds that humans are born as infinitely perfectible blank slates.”,,, “(present day Scientists) understanding of human nature is more consonant with the Pelagian outlook than with the orthodox Christian outlook.”

    And indeed, Pelagianism is built right into the supposed ‘science’ of the Darwinian worldview:

    From the eugenics of Nazi Germany, (which sought to ‘speed up’ the evolution of supposedly superior
    “Nordic” or “Aryan” traits, via removal of ‘unfit’ races from the gene pool),,,,

    Nazi eugenics
    Excerpt: Nazi eugenics refers to the social policies of eugenics in Nazi Germany. The racial ideology of Nazism placed the biological improvement of the German people by selective breeding of “Nordic” or “Aryan” traits at its center.[1]
    Eugenics research in Germany before and during the Nazi period was similar to that in the United States (particularly California), by which it had been heavily inspired. However, its prominence rose sharply under Adolf Hitler’s leadership when wealthy Nazi supporters started heavily investing in it.
    – per wikipedia

    ,,, to the present day sci-fi belief that technology will, someday and somehow, enable scientists to genetically engineer ‘superhumans”, with “capabilities beyond imagination.”

    The Dawn of Superhumans – Evolution 2.0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTbWLh1aRYo
    In the future, thanks to technologies such as CRISPR, it would be possible to alter the human genome in such a way that every human being could be born with a genetic predisposition to a greater degree of strength, intelligence, speed and so on.,,,
    ,,, it is undeniable that we are on the verge of a new era of evolution in which humans will be able to increase their intelligence and capabilities beyond imagination.

    ,,, Pelagianism rears its ugly head time and time again within the Darwinian worldview.

    Perhaps no quote more soberly, and chillingly, captures this “Pelagianism”, i.e. ‘superhuman’, thinking that is central to the Darwinian worldview than this quote from a prominent alt-right spokesman,,,

    “We believe in Darwin and evolutionary science. Man is, at bottom, a biological entity and, in particular, his potentialities are circumscribed by his genetic heritage. This must be recognized so life may continue its upward evolution, towards the stars, rather than back into the muck.”
    – Guilluame Durocher
    https://evolutionnews.org/2022/03/darwinian-influences-on-the-alt-right/

    Besides the ghosts of six million Jews from Hitler’s death camps all testifying to the fact that ‘original sin’ is very much a real facet of humanity, and also clearly illustrating the fact that the Darwinian belief in the evolution of ‘superhumans’ is a flat-out lie from the pits of hell, science itself also, unequivocally, shows us that the Darwinian belief in the evolution of ‘superhumans’ is a flat-out lie.

    As Dr. John Sanford and company have shown, (via numerous different angles), no matter what man may try to do via artificial selection, (and/or via genetic engineering), to try to prevent it, man is in the relentless grip of what is termed ‘genetic entropy’. Wherein, “slightly deleterious alleles, (which are invisible to selection and beyond our ability to stop), accumulate steadily, causing eventual extinction.”

    Dr. John Sanford Lecture at NIH (National Institute of Health): Genetic Entropy – Mutation Accumulation: Is it a Serious Health Risk? – 2018 video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqIjnol9uh8

    Can Purifying Natural Selection Preserve Biological Information? – May 2013 –
    Paul Gibson, John R. Baumgardner, Wesley H. Brewer, John C. Sanford
    In conclusion, numerical simulation shows that realistic levels of biological noise result in a high selection threshold. This results in the ongoing accumulation of low-impact deleterious mutations, with deleterious mutation count per individual increasing linearly over time. Even in very long experiments (more than 100,000 generations), slightly deleterious alleles accumulate steadily, causing eventual extinction. These findings provide independent validation of previous analytical and simulation studies [2–13]. Previous concerns about the problem of accumulation of nearly neutral mutations are strongly supported by our analysis. Indeed, when numerical simulations incorporate realistic levels of biological noise, our analyses indicate that the problem is much more severe than has been acknowledged, and that the large majority of deleterious mutations become invisible to the selection process.,,,
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0010   

    Dr. John Sanford – Links to Selected Papers
    https://www.logosresearchassociates.org/john-sanford

    Just how bad the ‘problem’ of ‘Genetic Entropy’ is for the Darwinian belief that humans are slowly evolving into some type of ‘superhuman’ is, perhaps, most clearly illustrated by the following factoid.

    Specifically, although ‘beneficial mutations in humans are known to be exceedingly rare, to non-existent, (i.e. “Beneficials happen, but generally they are loss-of-function mutations, and even then they are very rare!”)

    Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy – Dr John Sanford – 7 March 2013
    Excerpt: Where are the beneficial mutations in man? It is very well documented that there are thousands of deleterious Mendelian mutations accumulating in the human gene pool, even though there is strong selection against such mutations. Yet such easily recognized deleterious mutations are just the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of deleterious mutations will not display any clear phenotype at all. There is a very high rate of visible birth defects, all of which appear deleterious. Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Why are no beneficial birth anomalies being seen? This is not just a matter of identifying positive changes. If there are so many beneficial mutations happening in the human population, selection should very effectively amplify them. They should be popping up virtually everywhere. They should be much more common than genetic pathologies. Where are they? European adult lactose tolerance appears to be due to a broken lactase promoter [see Can’t drink milk? You’re ‘normal’! Ed.].
    African resistance to malaria is due to a broken hemoglobin protein [see Sickle-cell disease. Also, immunity of an estimated 20% of western Europeans to HIV infection is due to a broken chemokine receptor—see CCR5-delta32: a very beneficial mutation. Ed.] Beneficials happen, but generally they are loss-of-function mutations, and even then they are very rare!
    http://creation.com/genetic-entropy

    ,,, although ‘beneficial mutations in humans are known to be exceedingly rare, to non-existent, the scientific evidence that we are in the relentless grip of ‘genetic entropy’ is established by the fact that over 350,000 deleterious mutations responsible from human diseases have now been identified.

    The Human Gene Mutation Database
    The Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD®) represents an attempt to collate known (published) gene lesions responsible for human inherited disease.
    Deleterious Mutation total (as of March 13, 2022) – 352,731
    http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/

    As should be needless to say, this is completely devastating to Darwinian presuppositions.

    In short, as far as science can tell us, humans, nor any other creature on the face of earth, could possibly have been created by evolutionary processes, and therefore humans must have been created by an Intelligence, (which I personally, and scientifically, hold to be God, via evidence from Quantum Biology).

    Genesis 1:27
    So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

    Here is another supplemental factoid that also severely questions the Darwinian belief that we are slowly evolving into some type of ‘superhumans’,

    Scientists Discover Proof That Humanity Is Getting Dumber, Smaller And Weaker By Michael Snyder, on April 29th, 2014
    Excerpt: An earlier study by Cambridge University found that mankind is shrinking in size significantly.
    Experts say humans are past their peak and that modern-day people are 10 percent smaller and shorter than their hunter-gatherer ancestors.
    And if that’s not depressing enough, our brains are also smaller.
    The findings reverse perceived wisdom that humans have grown taller and larger, a belief which has grown from data on more recent physical development.
    The decline, said scientists, has happened over the past 10,000 years.
    http://thetruthwins.com/archiv.....and-weaker

    Verse:

    Isaiah 1:18
    “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”

  6. 6
    News says:

    Jerry at 3, agreed. But in the COVID case, the misrepresentations and apparent falsehoods did a lot of damage to average people who don’t follow origin and design debates.

    We can use our own experience as a paradigm because it is small, focused, and neat.

    But first, we need to be clear that the problem has metastasized and deeper enquiries are needed.

    If I can’t get Mrs. Nice to see that it’s a problem when a local prof loses her job because she accidentally revealed her doubts about some Darwin shibboleth, can I at least get Mrs. Nice to see that she may not be getting straightforward facts about the life, health, and safety of the people she cares about, including herself?

    COVID may be a way of getting her attention, if it did no other good.

    For everyone’s future safety, we need objective enquiries.

  7. 7
    jerry says:

    Denyse,

    From yesterday

    The CDC: Source of Misinformation

    The CDC failed on so many pandemic recommendations it’s hard to count. Here are a few, and no doubt books will be written on this topic alone:

    Not supporting outdoor activities at all times and ever endorsing wearing face masks outdoors.

    Remote learning in the fall of 2020 and beyond.

    Face masks required in schools.

    Social distancing in schools, thus reducing capacity in classrooms and requiring remote learning.

    Toddlers wearing face masks in day care.

    Closing indoor dining, gyms and many retailers.

    Eliminating “elective” surgeries. These weren’t face lifts halted. These were actual surgeries, cancer diagnoses, treatments, and so many more.

    Vaccinating healthy young people, rather than emphasizing those over fifty, or overweight or with other select underlying conditions be vaccinated.

    mRNA doses should have been spaced out more than 21 days, particularly for young people.

    Parsing out vaccination recommendations. For example, young healthy men, if they got one, were better off with the J&J than a mRNA; healthy women under fifty would be better off without the J&J; people under thirty or so should stay away from the Moderna vaccine, and many other tailored recommendations.
    The data as of spring 2021 supported all these stratifications.

    Not recommending recovered infection immunity as equivalent to having received the vaccines.

    The CDC changed their official definition of a vaccine to conform with the COVID-19 vaccines, rather than accept that the COVID-19 vaccines were more therapeutic in nature than what we have come to expect from a vaccine. There is nothing wrong with that. It seems consensus that the vaccines provide some protective benefit, and have more side effects than other vaccines. Those are near-facts as of 2022 (and were by early 2021), and there is nothing wrong with saying so.

    https://brownstone.org/articles/the-cdc-source-of-misinformation/

  8. 8
    News says:

    Jerry at 7, agreed. And the next question is, who is going to spearhead the investigation of the mass of corruption that is now called “the science”?

    From where I live:

    Canada, March 13, 2022

    Okay, it begins: An actual enquiry into how government mismanagement hastened elders into an early grave: Who Killed Granny? Pandemic Death Protocols in Canada’s Long-term Care Facilities Granny’s death was great for pumping up the panic that closed elementary schools and teen drop-in centres, even though her grandchildren and great-grandchildren were not at risk of COVID but were at risk of delayed literacy/numeracy and/or depression/suicide attempts. Nice going, Public Health!

    Plus

    Harms From Vaccine Mandates May Outweigh Benefits, Say Vancouver Coastal Health Officials So someone is finally discussing that… ? We can talk abioutr vaccine injuries now?

    It doesn’t bode well that most people will only ever have heard the term “vaccine injuries” from disapproved sources.

    The panic abruptly died in the province of British Columbia, where O’Leary for News lives: “BC Will End Mask Mandates on March 11, Vaccine Passports on April”

    Never were. And never would have been. Meanwhile, the Crazy lives on. Hordes of mentally fragile people mask up even in broad daylight on the streets — in the teeth of the wind off the North Pacific. Superstition does that to people. But why call it “science?”

    Meanwhile, as many BC residents finally (!) breathe free indoors in public places, watch the MASSIVE legacy media effort at concern trolling:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGYIkP9bGcQ

    On the one hand, concern trolling at least helps the people disabled by COVID-19 fear to save face. On the other hand, those people need to be weaned from “best of science” fear porn.

    Meanwhile, British Columbia, is also firing doctors who won’t prescribe the vaxx even though the province faces a huge doctor shortage. Good to know the government has its priorities right.

    That is, if you needed someone to address your heart failure, you are out of luck, whether you have or haven’t had the shot or suffered from it or whatever. This is what happens when government gets a stranglehold on medical science.

    Punditry

    As mandates and other crazies are falling across the country: How the Government’s Response to Freedom Convoy Differed From Its Approach With Other Protests in Canada (Omid Ghoreishi):

    Just before COVID-19 became the major crisis of the past two years, Canada was in the midst of grappling with railroad blockades by opponents of a pipeline development project in B.C. in early 2020. The weeks-long blockades crippled freight and passenger rail traffic in most of Eastern Canada.

    Early in 2022, Canada saw another series of protests, this time in opposition to COVID-19 mandates, with participants setting up camp in downtown Ottawa and others blocking Canada-U.S. border crossings.

    But there was a vast difference between how the government dealt with the anti-mandate protest and how it responded to the anti-pipeline protest as well as other protests in recent years.

    Um, right. Canada’s future, going forward, largely depends on whether it makes any difference that the government’s response to the uproars around COVID was for citizens to be trampled by police horses.

  9. 9
    News says:

    United States, March 13, 2022

    The reckoning begins (and continues, we hope):

    Facts Matter (March 11): The Pfizer Documents: 158K Adverse Events, 42K Case reports, 1.2K Fatalities in First 3 Months Expect lots of tooth-and-nail fights, devious tactics, and sudden disappearances of critical documents as corporate and government crats seek to hide things we weren’t supposed to know.

    Growing Number of Countries Identify Cases of ‘Deltacron’ Variant Um, no. A solid mass of people — who can thank the Canadian truckers for finally calling out all the crap — will likely resolutely oppose another round of Crazy.

    Crazy? How about this: Lockdown Debate Was Skewed Because Skeptical Scientists Had Less ‘Twitter Firepower’: Study Let that sink in, people. The Twitterati you never listened to were helping run your life.

    Oh, and get this: “Mask Mandates Not Linked to Lower COVID-19 Case Rate or Transmission: Study” Huh? It would be amazing if they were any use. In that case, everything we ever knew about sterile procedure would turn out to be false.

    Massachusetts to Reduce ‘Significant Overcount’ of COVID-19 Deaths But will the state government follow through?

    Much of the worldwide panic porn has been driven by false counts and misunderstood risks. Governments will need to be, um, prodded to face up to the risks.

    Now, as we move forward (or not), a final message: Maybe you didn’t care when ID proponents lost their jobs for not fronting Darwin. After all, you didn’t think it would spread. But it does.

    The COVID Crazy is what happens when “science” becomes a placeholder for a variety of wants and fears, power grabs and pursuit of profits. Now that you had to live with it – and should justifiably fear the next Crazy coming down the pike – what do you think about what has become of science?

    All some of us ever say is, Let the enquiries begin!

  10. 10
    News says:

    As of March 13, 2022, this page will not be updated. The issues re COVID-19 have now moved to the stage where only serious enquiries into the costly Crazy will be any use. Meanwhile, we leave you with this thought:

    Now, as we move forward (or not), a final message: Maybe you didn’t care when ID proponents lost their jobs for not fronting Darwin. After all, you didn’t think it would spread. But it does.

    The COVID Crazy is what happens when “science” becomes a placeholder for a variety of wants and fears, power grabs and pursuit of profits. Now that you had to live with it – and should justifiably fear the next Crazy coming down the pike – what do you think about what has become of science?

    Much of the worldwide panic porn has been driven by false counts and misunderstood risks. Governments will need to be, um, prodded to face up to these problems. In our own jurisdictions, we can all be good citizens and help.

  11. 11
    News says:

    As of March 13, 2022, this page on the COVID response will not be updated. The issues re COVID-19 have now moved to the stage where only serious enquiries into the costly Crazy will be any use. Meanwhile, we leave you with this thought:

    Now, as we move forward (or not), a final message: Maybe you didn’t care when ID proponents lost their jobs for not fronting Darwin. After all, you didn’t think it would spread. But it does.

    The COVID Crazy is what happens when “science” becomes a placeholder for a variety of wants and fears, power grabs and pursuit of profits. Now that you had to live with it – and should justifiably fear the next Crazy coming down the pike – what do you think about what has become of science?

  12. 12
    polistra says:

    Neo-pelagianism must be a fancy way of spelling ‘tenure’.

  13. 13
    ram says:

    1. Christian? It’s almost as if the Hebrew Bible never existed.

    2. Sin is a moral issue. Reasoning is not. While it’s generally true people don’t reason very well, they can be taught to reason better without a change in their nature, if they are willing. If regeneration was required to do science, nobody would be doing science except the regenerated.

    3. There is no evidence in the Hebrew or Christian bibles that a corruption in reasoning powers was the result of Adam and Eve’s sin. They reasoned improperly and sinned (partly due to ignorance of their condition) before any kind of corruption to their reasoning powers would have occurred.

    4. Francis Bacon (who I consider to have been a genius) was heavily influenced by Rosicrucianism (read his New Atlantis for example), which was heavily influenced by Jewish Kabbala, which asserts a divine nature and perfectibility to humans. Strange that this never gets mentioned in these kinds of discussions. Simply put, Bacon recognized “cognitive bias” before such a term existed as he wondered why people believe what they believe. It didn’t have anything to do with “sin.” The solution to the problem being education not regeneration.

    –Ram

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Ram claims that Bacon’e deeply held Christian belief in ‘original sin’ did not influence his championing of the inductive reasoning of the scientific method over and above the dominant form of deductive reasoning of the Ancient Greeks.

    Others disagree with Ram’s claim:

    The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science – Peter Harrison – 2007
    Description: Peter Harrison provides an account of the religious foundations of scientific knowledge. He shows how the approaches to the study of nature that emerged in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were directly informed by theological discussions about the Fall of Man and the extent to which the mind and the senses had been damaged by that primeval event. Scientific methods, he suggests, were originally devised as techniques for ameliorating the cognitive damage wrought by human sin. At its inception, modern science was conceptualized as a means of recapturing the knowledge of nature that Adam had once possessed. Contrary to a widespread view that sees science emerging in conflict with religion, Harrison argues that theological considerations were of vital importance in the framing of the scientific method.
    https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Man-Foundations-Science/dp/0521117291
    Peter Harrison is a former Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford and is presently Research Professor and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Queensland. He was the 2011 Gifford Lecturer at the University of Edinburgh and holds a Senior Research Fellowship in the Ian Ramsey Centre at Oxford

    Bacon’s “Enchanted Glass” – Emily Morales – December 2019
    Excerpt: It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology in his Great Instauration. In this brilliant man of faith’s view, the Adamic fall left an indelible mark on the human intellect, such that in its total depravity and persistent infirmity it could not be trusted to generate knowledge that was in any way free from bias, wrong presuppositions, or contradictions.,,,
    Recognizing then, the limitations of the human mind for revealing truth by mere logic and deductive reasoning, Bacon posited an altogether different means for knowledge acquisition: experimentation3—repeated experimentation—within the context of a scientific community (natural philosophers in his day). Bacon’s inductive methodology facilitated an explosion in knowledge of the natural world and accompanying technological advancement:
    https://salvomag.com/post/bacons-enchanted-glass
    3. Harrison, P. (2007). The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science. Cambridge University Press.

    Also of note as to just how heavily influenced Francis Bacon was by Christian theology in particular

    Theology and science in the thought of Francis Bacon
    Steven Matthews – 2013
    Abstract
    This study re-evaluates the religious beliefs of Francis Bacon and the role which his theology played in the development of his program for the reform of learning and the natural sciences, the Great Instauration. Bacon’s Instauration writings are saturated with theological statements and Biblical references which inform and explain his program, yet this aspect of his writings has received little attention. Previous considerations of Bacon’s religion have been drawn from a fairly short list of his published writings. Consequently, Bacon has been portrayed as everything from an atheist to a Puritan; scholarly consensus is lacking. This book argues that by considering the historical context of Bacon’s society, and his conversion from Puritanism to anti-Calvinism as a young man, his own theology can be brought into clearer focus, and his philosophy more properly understood. After leaving his mother’s household, Bacon underwent a transformation of belief which led him away from his mother’s Calvinism and toward the writings of the ancient Church Fathers, particularly Irenaeus of Lyon. Bacon’s theology increasingly came to reflect the theological interests of his friend and editor Lancelot Andrewes. The patristic turn of Bacon’s belief in the last two decades of the reign of Elizabeth significantly affected the development of his philosophical program which was produced in the first two decades of the Stuart era. This study then examines the theology present in the Instauration writings themselves and concludes with a consideration of the effect which Bacon’s theology had on the subsequent direction of empirical science and natural theology in the English context. In so doing it not only offers a new perspective on Bacon, but will serve as a contribution toward a better understanding of the religious context of, and motivations behind, empirical science in early modern England.
    https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/theology-and-science-in-the-thought-of-francis-bacon

    Lancelot Andrewes (1555 – 25 September 1626) was an English bishop and scholar, who held high positions in the Church of England during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I. During the latter’s reign, Andrewes served successively as Bishop of Chichester, of Ely, and of Winchester and oversaw the translation of the King James Version of the Bible (or Authorized Version). In the Church of England he is commemorated on 25 September with a lesser festival.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancelot_Andrewes

    IRENAEUS OF LYONS
    Irenaeus was born sometime around AD 130 and grew up in Asia Minor under the ministry of Polycarp in Smyrna, who was himself a disciple of the apostle John according to tradition. Irenaeus recounts his memories of sitting under Polycarp’s teaching, hearing the accounts of the apostles to the life of Jesus. These experiences only strengthened his conviction of the apostolic nature of the Christian faith.
    Later, Irenaeus made his way to Rome and was influenced by the teaching of Justin Martyr as he sought to confront the many heresies there. From Rome, he eventually made his way to the western province of Gaul and settled in the capital of Lugdunum, which is modern-day Lyons. Living among the Celts in a provincial city, Irenaeus was far from the refinement and civilization Rome, and he lamented the influence of the barbarous Celts on him and his own lack of training in rhetoric or composition. However, Christianity had grown vibrant in Gaul, so that when persecution broke out in 177, many brave believers from Gaul went to their deaths and their heroic testimonies went out to churches across the Roman empire. Prior to the persecutions, Irenaeus had been sent as part of a delegation to Rome, and upon his return to Lugdunum, Irenaeus was chosen to be the bishop where he would serve for the rest of his life.
    Irenaeus’ writings reveal that a significant aspect of his ministry was defending the faith against false teachers.,,,
    https://www.historicaltheology.org/irenaeus-of-lyon/

    Of supplemental note:

    And, (in what should not be surprising for anyone who has debated Darwinists for any length of time), it turns out that Darwinian evolution itself is not based on Bacon’s Inductive form of reasoning, (which is too say that Darwin’s theory itself is not based on the scientific method), but Darwin’s theory is instead based, in large measure, on the Deductive form of reasoning that Bacon had specifically shunned because of the fallibleness of man’s fallen sinful nature.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727981

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.

  15. 15
    Querius says:

    Ram @13,

    1. The Bible that Yeshua/Jesus and the earliest believers used and quoted from was the Tanakh.

    2. While it’s true that sin is a moral issue, obviously it infects everything it touches: science, government, business, etc.

    3. Is the Tanakh three Bibles or one Bible? According to Torah, Adam and Eve sinned through disobedience. They were deceived by a lie based on their desire to become wise rationalized by reasoning.

    4. Torah already had attested to humanity being made in the divine image by means of the Ruach HaKodesh in their original condition. Atonement, not perfectability is the message of Torah.

    I love what C.S. Lewis wrote about education:

    “Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”

    -Q

  16. 16
    Bob O'H says:

    Barry @ 1 –

    I mean that [scientists’] understanding of human nature is more consonant with the Pelagian outlook than with the orthodox Christian outlook.

    That should be a very testable hypothesis. The debate about replication started in psychology, so it shouldn’t be too difficult to find out what psychologists before and during the debate thought about mental development in babies.

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    ^^^
    Perhaps Bob should look closer to home to find evidence for cognitive bias that distorts evidence solely in order to fit one’s preconceived notions.

    Bob O’Hara
    Professor at NTNU
    “I torture data until it confesses. Sometimes I have to resort to Bayesianism” – 2016
    “I tortured data, mainly in ecology and evolutionary biology.” – 2009

    Of course the problem with Bob O’Hara honestly admitting that he statistically ‘tortures data until it confesses’ is that data, like people, will confess to anything you want it to if you torture it/them long enough.

    “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.”
    – Ronald Harry Coase (29 December 1910 – 2 September 2013) was a British economist. Coase believed economists should study real markets and not theoretical ones,

  18. 18
    ram says:

    Querius @15

    Absolutely nothing in your reply overthrows my statements. Try addressing the bullet points one by one.

    –Ram

  19. 19
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/17

    Of course the problem with Bob O’Hara honestly admitting that he statistically ‘tortures data until it confesses’ is that data, like people, will confess to anything you want it to if you torture it/them long enough.

    Does the Nuremburg Code prohibit the abuse of data?

    If it does then we should be asking some pointed questions about the data surrounding the Shroud of Turin at least.

  20. 20
    ram says:

    “I was born an original sinner, I was born from original sin, and if I had a dollar bill for all the things I’ve done, there’d be a mountain of money piled up to my chin.”

    Truer words were never spoken.

    Great song

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Q3cp3cp88

    –Ram

Leave a Reply