Are Christians Anti-Science?

Fewer slurs against Christianity are more common today than the accusation that Christians are anti-science.  You know the portrayal—Christians as Bible-thumping fundamentalists, so sure of themselves they don't give a darn what science says; Matthew Brady in Inherit the Wind.  A few, perhaps are happy to accept the stereotype, while others regret it, but see this as the price they have to pay in order to be faithful to Scripture on issues of creation and evolution.  Others more cockily insist they care deeply about science, but it's just mainstream science that isn't to be trusted, and they trumpet their own idiosyncratic scientific theories instead.  Outside of evangelicalism, and increasingly within, many have nervously shifted out of the firing line, doing their best to renounce all that is scientifically unrespectable in traditional Christian teaching.  On the wisdom of this latter strategy I do not intend to comment here (clearly, I have described it in rather unflattering terms, but on many issues, such accommodation may involve no trace of unfaithfulness).

On reading Merchants of Doubt, though, I was troubled by just how much truth there might be to the stereotype, and I have begun to wonder how true is the claim of American Christians that "We're not anti-science in general; we just cannot accept mainstream science on Darwinian evolution."  For when it comes to environmental skepticism, there seems little question that evangelical Christians have been in the front ranks.

Click to read more ...

Merchants of Doubt: A Review

This immensely important and timely book demands attention from anyone determined to think critically and intelligently about the current interface of politics, economics, and science, which one might describe as the three gods of our time.  The book is not flawless, to be sure.  As a complete layman in such issues, I can detect certain ideological flaws, which I shall come to in due course, and it is hard not to think that the authors present a somewhat one-sided perspective on a highly contentious issue, and that their opponents would have rather more to say for themselves than Conway and Oreskes imply.  Indeed, in such matters, it is always essential to keep Proverbs 18:17 in mind: "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him."  Nonetheless, from what I know of the world, and from the compellingness of the narrative set forth in this book, I am for now provisionally convinced that their basic picture is accurate. 

This picture, it turns out, is considerably more complex and interesting than I had expected when I picked up the book.  The basic gist I thought I knew: climate change denial is largely funded by Big Oil and industries with a vested interest in staving off any policy shifts in a green direction.  The science is being corrupted by greed.  And, should you be skeptical of such cynicism, just look at how Big Tobacco did the same thing in the 60s—and the 70s and 80s and 90s, for that matter; doubt is a highly durable product, it seems.  

A sordid story, but alas, a somewhat believable one.  Yet, such a story has the troubling consequence of making scientists look like they're for sale to the highest bidder.  If Big Tobacco and Big Oil could simply bribe scientists into distorting the facts, then why should the moral of this story be "Trust the scientists," as it must be for climate change orthodoxy?  Thankfully, Conway and Oreskes's story is, as I said, considerably more complex, and on reflection, more disturbing.  

Click to read more ...

Vegetables are Food

So, I posted this entire quote 2 1/2 years ago.  However, I re-read the chapter containing it, from O'Donovan's Resurrection and Moral Order, the other day and was just as mesmerized this time as I was the first time, so I thought it good enough to warrant sharing again:

Abstraction from teleology creates a dangerous misunderstanding of the place of man in the universe. For it supposes that the observing mind encounters an inert creation--not, that is, a creation without movement, but a creation without a point to its movement. Thus the mind credits to its own conceptual creativity that teleological order which is, despite everything, necessary to life. All ordering becomes deliberative ordering, and scientific observation, failing as it does to report the given teleological order within nature, becomes the servant of techne. Of course, man continues to eat vegetables; but he no longer knows that he does so because vegetables are food, and comes to imagine that he has devised a use for them as food. 

Click to read more ...

Creation v. Evolution (Guest Series), Pt. 4: Observational Science

by Bradley Belschner

Whereas forensic science uses clues to piece together a narrative of the past, observational science gives us a narrative that we can actually watch happening. We can see natural selection, speciation, and mutations in real-time, and sometimes we can even repeat them experimentally. In this post I'll be dealing with observational science.  

Exhibit F: Natural Selection 

Evolutionist: Natural Selection is the process that drives the survival of the fittest, and which in turn drives the gradual Evolution of all creatures. Peppered moths!

Creationist: Natural Selection does indeed drive survival of the fittest. But to equate that with “the gradual Evolution of all creatures” isn't just a stretch, it's a non-sequitur. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean that mushrooms evolve into men; it just means that the fittest creatures survive. 

VERDICT: Irrelevant. Natural selection is an everyday process, and a necessary component of both Evolutionism and Creationism.

Click to read more ...

Creation v. Evolution (Guest Series), Part 3: Forensic Science (2)

By Bradley Belschner

(continued from Part 2)

EXHIBIT C: Vestigial Structures

Evolutionist: Many structures appear to be vestiges---leftovers from earlier Evolutionary stages. Humans have tiny remnants of ear muscles, the human appendix is a vestige from when we were herbivores, the human coccyx is a remnant of a tail, dolphins have vestiges of legs, etc. Some of these vestiges have even adopted brand new uses over time. The Theory of Evolution predicts that we should see many vestiges from earlier stages of development, and that's exactly what we see. (The same argument applies to genetic and biochemical vestiges.) 

Creationist: Some of these structures in question are actually only minor vestiges from de-evolution (the opposite of Evolution). So yeah, perhaps Adam and Eve had more developed ear muscles than we do today. So what? Creationists agree with those sorts of minor vestiges, the sorts that come from realistic de-evolution. We disagree with Evolutionists over their claims of ridiculous major vestiges, the kind that only an Evolutionary narrative would want (e.g., dolphins with vestiges of legs). Most of the time we can identify important uses for these structures, thereby calling into question their 'vestigiality.' For example, the coccyx in humans serves to anchor muscles, and is an important part of the musculoskeletal system. If an organ's function is not known yet, we simply trust that its function will be discovered in the future. History has usually proven us right.

Click to read more ...