I recently heard a Christian argue against the Theory of Evolution on the basis that they find conflict between the notion that humans are descended from non-human animals, and the idea that we are made in the image of God.

I hate to break it to you but the Genesis narrative says we were descended from… DUST.

Do you prefer this? Really, how is this better?

I would’ve thought that one of the overarching themes of Christian scripture is that the origin of something needn’t have any bearing on that thing’s identity, or its future. Matthew’s Gospel highlights that Jesus was descended from a prostitute. And he turned out alright.

A little atheist myth about science.

Myth: Even when scientists believe in God, they become practical atheists whenever they do science; they never bring God into the laboratory.

FALSE

That is neither true historically nor conceptually.

Let’s consider the great pioneers of modern science – the scientists of the scientific revolution (who produced modern science as we know it). Believe it or not, they were not looking for “naturalistic” explanations of things. They simply looked for consistent explanations of things. The reason they believed that nature would behave consistently is because they believed that God ruled nature.

Atheists often tell us that that bringing God into the laboratory (bringing the theistic worldview into scientific endeavours) will lead to lazy inferences: that is, supernatural explanations. It is as if God becomes a conceptual crutch – an escape clause in every difficult anomaly whereby they can simply say, “God did it,” while atheists, who must assume nature causes everything, are left to do the hard work of figuring out the natural patterns and causes of things. (This is all part and parcel of the broader atheistic myth, that science and theism are essentially opposed.)

Of course, this would entail on the theist’s part an inconsistent model of nature – a nature that lacks the resources to produce the systems around us. For a scientist to invoke supernatural explanations for things would be to assume that nature, unaided by God, is unable to behave in the way that it has been observed to.

But the mistake this makes is not that it brings the theistic worldview into the laboratory; it is that it fails to consider the way in which God governs nature: rationally, consistently, and uniformly. The scientific revolutionaries – almost all of them Christians – didn’t make that mistake. They assumed that nature would behave according to intelligible patterns and laws, because they believed in a divine intelligence as nature’s lawgiver.

Thus when they came across an anomalous piece of data, rather than calling it a miracle, their way forward was not to suspend belief in a divine intelligence, but to invoke their belief in God by assuming that the anomaly must be a consistent part of a divinely designed pattern that had yet to be discerned.

Then they searched for the pattern. And the rest is history.

This myth does not seem to pass the test of history, let alone pure reason.

Physicist and TV presenter Brian Cox said on Q and A tonight that the power of science is that it’s the only discipline that admits its own fallibility.

Seems like a really nice guy, but I’m perplexed as to why he would believe something that is so obviously false: I’ve never met a philosopher, historian, economist, lawyer, literary critic, OR theologian, who does not admit their own fallibility and the fallibility of their discipline.

And yes, I meant it when I said theologian. Theologians consider the text they work with (e.g. the Bible) – their data source – to be infallible, but they consider their own interpretations of the text to be fallible.

Note that this is exactly the same as scientists, who consider nature – their data source – to be completely infallible: never lying to us, and never changing, but constantly being misinterpreted by us.

Scientists and theologians are no different in this regard.

On the Progressiveness of Science and Conservatism of Religion

We all know how often science and religion are pitted against each other. And it happens in so many ways. Various inherent differences are suggested between these two enterprises. They say that science appeals to reason while religion appeals to authority; science improves society while religion hinders society’s progression. We’ve all heard the fairy tales – you might not call them fairy tales, but I do. Anyway. There’s one particular difference that I commonly hear suggested as existing between science and religion, which I want to address here. And that is that science is inherently progressive, while religion is inherently stubborn or static.

Continue reading

On the moral consequences of evolution

Every time a Christian claims that evolution has the disastrously fascistic ethical implications of eugenics and ethnic cleansing, they achieve nothing but to endorse and perpetuate the disastrous atheistic myth that science can, on its own, give us moral truths.

Science can do nothing of the sort, and that it can is a myth born out of a naturalistic worldview as it bends over backwards to try to explain morality in the universe.

From a mere scientific, historical description of the manners in which species, including humanity, came to be as they are, one cannot derive any notions of how the human species ought to be or behave. Any arguments to the contrary utilise not reason, but a poetic sophistry of wordplay, treating connotation as definition, and emotion as logic.

Evolution entails neither good nor bad moral consequences. To use such an argument against evolution, is like saving a sinking boat by throwing out the passengers. For we should be much less worried about evolution, than about scientism.

Scientism

…is the view that scientific knowledge is the only valid kind of knowledge.

Scientism can only be argued for with a philosophical argument; Scientism is a philosophical viewpoint.

Therefore Scientism entails the validity of philosophical knowledge.

Therefore Scientism entails its own negation.

It is a basic error, to assume that Science and Religion are trying to do the same thing, fill the same role, answer the same questions. There is no competition between them because they are playing different games.

No amount of scientific investigation can disprove the possibility of miracles. Science will tell you precisely what will happen so long as the laws of nature are in operation. Miracles by definition are events in which the laws of nature are suspended – where for whatever reason they have ceased to operate.

Science can’t tell you that a man cannot walk on water; it can only tell you that a man walking on water is not acting under the regulations of the laws of nature.

Science studies only how nature behaves in and of itself, therefore it cannot tell you anything about what exists outside of nature.

Science examines what events nature can produce. Any other event, if nature is incapable of resourcing it, will need to be resourced by something beyond nature. Does anything exist beyond nature? Science doesn’t know! All science knows about is nature.