David Coppedge calls this stuff “anti-Christian.” It is that. But that’s because it’s becoming anti-human. All human traditions must speak against it.
Maybe Christians should go first? Okay… Geronimo!
Two articles highlighted below will be used to justify the headline that science is being used to vilify Christians. That’s an insufficient sample, to be sure, but one support for this view is the absence of debate about it. Usually, when there is controversy about some scientific theory or paper, journals will print alternative views by other scientists. A printed debate is labeled as a “matter arising” about the subject. A critique is printed, and the original author has an opportunity to respond. If serious enough, the journal may print an “editorial expression of concern” about a paper, which might lead to a retraction.
There is no such “matter arising” about these articles. The silence amounts to de facto endorsement by the Big Science consensus. These articles, written by professors at major universities in the name of “science” and reprinted by science news outlets like Phys.org, amount to direct quasi-scientific attacks on what Christians believe. Christians—particularly evangelicals—are portrayed as standing in the way of progress. That is the first step a society can take toward persecuting them.
Pro-Life Views as Anti-Science
In The Conversation, Sahotra Sarkar takes aim at the pro-life movement. Sarkar is Professor of Philosophy and Integrative Biology at the University of Texas at Austin College of Liberal Arts. He launched his pro-abortion attack after the recent Supreme Court decision that did not stop a Texas “heartbeat bill” that bans abortion when a baby’s first heartbeat it is detected. (The bill does not “ban” such abortions; it only permits lawsuits against institutions performing them.)David F. Coppedge , “Anti-Christian Science Becoming More Blatant” at Creation–Evolution Headlines (September 24, 2021)
Cutting living babies up feet first (in abortions) is a bad idea in principle. What else do we need to say?
But Big Science does not need human beings. It could make do with mostly Big Government and lots of androids.
At that point, it need not even make sense.
Big Science badly needs a sharp whack upside the head. Will it get one?