Is Christianity at War with Science?

The claim that Christianity is at war with science is one of the most common claims I hear from young people today. In fact, the belief that Christianity is opposed to modern science is one of the top reasons young people cite for leaving the church.[1] That’s why in the updated Evidence that Demands a Verdict, my father and I respond to this charge before advancing the historical evidence for Christianity.

Christianity Science

But where did this idea come from? Is it accurate? In 1896 Cornell University president Andrew Dickson White released a book entitled A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. White is largely credited with inventing and propagating the idea that science and Christianity are adversaries in the search for truth. White cast Christians as fanatics who clung to scriptural claims that the earth was flat. But is this account true? Sociologist Rodney Stark responds,

White’s book remains influential despite the fact that modern historians of science dismiss it as nothing but a polemic—White himself admitted that he wrote the book to get even with Christian critics of his plans for Cornell . . . many of White’s other accounts are as bogus as his report of the flat earth and Columbus.[2]

The Warfare Myth

Why has this warfare myth been so influential? The truth is that the supposed warfare between religion and science is a polemical device used in the secular attack on faith. In reality, theology was essential for the rise of modern science.

How so? In their book The Soul of ScienceNancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton demonstrate that Christian assumptions, such as the conviction that nature is lawful (since it was the creation of a rational God) and that science is meant to alleviate toil and suffering, provided the backdrop for the emergence of the scientific revolution in Europe.

Most scientific pioneers were theists as well, including prominent figures such as Copernicus (1473–1543), Boyle (1627–1691), Newton (1642–1727), Pascal (1623–1662), Kepler (1571–1630), Pasteur (1822–1895), Bacon (1561–1626), and Max Planck (1858–1947). Many of these pioneers intently pursued science because of their belief in the Christian God.

The Real Conflict

While the theistic worldview fosters the development of science, ironically, naturalistic evolution undermines it. Since according to naturalism we humans are the product of a blind, purposeless, and unguided evolutionary process, how can we trust our rational faculties to produce true beliefs?

In his book Where the Conflict Really LiesNotre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga explains that what naturalistic evolution guarantees is

…(at most) that we behave in certain ways—in such ways as to promote survival or more exactly reproductive success. The principal function or purpose, then, of our cognitive faculties is not that of producing true or verisimilitudinous (nearly true) beliefs, but instead that of contributing to survival by getting the body parts in the right place. What evolution underwrites is only (at most) that our behavior is reasonably adaptive to the circumstances in which our ancestors found themselves; hence it does not guarantee mostly true or verisimilitudinous beliefs. Our beliefs might be mostly true or verisimilitudinous; but there is no particular reason to think they would be: natural selection is interested, not in truth, but in appropriate behavior. (314–315)

Certainly, some Christians resist science. This is undeniable. And, as Plantinga observes, there are some beliefs individual Christians hold that are in tension with modern science. But this is only shallow conflict. No real conflict between theism and science exists. The real conflict—the deep conflict—is between science and naturalism.

Notes

[1]  David Kinnaman, You Lost Me (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011), 135-136.

[2] Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God (Princeton, NJ: Princeton, 2009), 123

 


Sean McDowell, Ph.D. is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, best-selling author, popular speaker, part-time high school teacher, and the Resident Scholar for Summit Ministries, California. Follow him on Twitter: @sean_mcdowell and his blog: seanmcdowell.org

 

Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
28 replies
  1. jcb says:

    Religion and theism often fail to “foster” science. But SM’s main failure is to ask bad questions which imply falsehoods. Example: SM says “Since according to naturalism we humans are the product of a blind, purposeless, and unguided evolutionary process, how can we trust our rational faculties to produce true beliefs?” The implication is, if naturalism is true (and theism is false), we can’t trust our rational faculties to produce true beliefs. That is, of course, false. We can trust our faculties in many ways, when science shows their use to be reliable! And, nothing shows that something else (other than using science and our rational faculties) is better at getting true beliefs/understanding reality. That many of our beliefs are not geared toward/aimed at the truth (but instead, for example, reproductive success), is best proven by more science and reason, not less. That science is done by humans who are often biased or have other agendas fails to show that science should be replaced by something else.
    SM wants to applaud science, but complain when science proves naturalistic claims. Thus it is false for SM to claim that “The real conflict—the deep conflict—is between science and naturalism.” Rather, science establishes the truth of naturalism. (No evidence is given for the dubious claim that theism “fosters the development of science”.)
    SM is right that we should applaud science, but is wrong in thinking there is no real conflict between its (science’s) method of determining truth, vs. the typical method of theism in determining truth: citing Scripture and appealing to faith.
    So basically, science is imperfect, but the best game in town, and it proves (currently) that there is no known perfect being. Theism would not be “at war” with science if it used science and paid attention to its findings, including that one about the lack of a (known) perfect being.

    Reply
    • Brian says:

      John, When you state the “Christianity says…”, what do you mean by Christianity? Do you mean that the Bible says trust the Bible? Or, do you mean that many self-proclaimed Christians say “trust the Bible”? Or, do you mean that the fundamental doctrines of Christianity state the one should just “trust the Bible”?

      Reply
  2. KR says:

    “While the theistic worldview fosters the development of science, ironically, naturalistic evolution undermines it. Since according to naturalism we humans are the product of a blind, purposeless, and unguided evolutionary process, how can we trust our rational faculties to produce true beliefs?”
    .
    We can’t trust our rational faculties to produce true beliefs, that’s why we need to verify our beliefs empirically. This is the reason for the success of the scientific method – a rather unsubtle point that Plantinga oddly seems to be missing. One would have to wonder how Plantinga can know that his faculties are producing true beliefs if he’s not able to apply some kind of empirical confirmation to them.

    Reply
    • Susan says:

      Belief systems don’t make war. People do but certain people are more prone to blaming others, stereotyping others inaccuately and engaging in all or nothing thinking.

      Reply
    • Eric Breaux says:

      Any deduction you make from experimentation is just as much the result of brain activity forcing you to think that, if naturalism is true. Nothing is certain then because no matter how much sense something makes to us, we’d believe it anyway, so there could be no way to know that we’re not believing something false. You didn’t address the problem presented in the quote.

      Reply
      • KR says:

        “Any deduction you make from experimentation is just as much the result of brain activity forcing you to think that, if naturalism is true.”
        .
        Either we can make reliable observations of reality or we can’t. If you’re arguing that we can’t, then you’re basically saying that we can’t actually know anything about reality since we can’t trust our senses. This would make our entire existence completely absurd. Just getting through the day would be impossible, since every activity from the time we get out of bed assumes the reliability of our sensory input. We all live as if we can trust our senses – I don’t see how we could live any other way.
        .
        You could of course make an argument for solipsism and that we’re just brains in vats or that we’re living in a simulation but this tends to be a conversation-ender, since there’s nothing much to talk about after that – or indeed anyone to talk to if you’re just a figment of my imagination. I’m perfectly happy to concede that I can’t disprove solipsism but as long as everything about my experience of reality tells me that the world is not a simulation or some kind of mirage, I’ll just assume that it’s not and get on with my life.
        .
        On the other hand, if we can make reliable observations of reality, then these observations are facts which can be verified by other observers, i.e they’re independent of our minds. The sucess of the scientific method, which relies on precisely such empirical observations is good evidence that we can in fact make reliable observations of reality. Science, applied correctly, tends to produce things that work which we wouldn’t expect if we couldn’t trust our senses so I feel justified in assuming that our senses are mostly reliable.
        .
        “Nothing is certain then because no matter how much sense something makes to us, we’d believe it anyway, so there could be no way to know that we’re not believing something false.”
        .
        As I’ve just explained, we do have a way of knowing if our beliefs are false as long as we can test them by making reliable observations of reality.
        .
        “You didn’t address the problem presented in the quote.”
        .
        Sure I did. The statement in the quote suggested that naturalistic evolution undermines science since we can’t trust our rational faculties to produce true beliefs if we are the result of an unguided evolutionary process that is predicated on survival and procreation rather than on an accurate understanding of reality. I responded by pointing out that science doesn’t rely on our rational faculties producing true beliefs. Quite on the contrary, the scientific method assumes that our rational faculties are fallible and that our conclusions must therefore always be supported by independently verifiable empirical observations.

        Reply
    • TGM says:

      This Reaganesque “trust but verify” approach cited here should immediately raise the eyebrows of authentic practitioners within the scientific enterprise. But then, your article does come from the popular economics press. Forget trust. Never trust. Rather, the more effective approach would be “distrust and distrust some more until there is no alternative but to accept the results”. People being people, employing the same shortcuts they do elsewhere in life, does not invalidate the method.
      .
      It’s unfortunate that so much chaff makes it into the literature, but there is still a selective process by which bad publications are filtered into obscurity. If it’s not useful, it lands in the garbage. If the data leads to future bad outcomes, it goes to the garbage. Regrettably wasteful. Not an indictment of science, just people.
      .
      You’re evidently interested in raising doubt about the enterprise rather than the method. I appreciate the attempt to emphasize caution before accepting someone’s test results; we could all use that advice, frequently, in every walk of life (#fakenews). Was that all you meant to say in your comment?

      Reply
      • bob says:

        “Was that all you meant to say in your comment?” I am guessing he was gearing up to expose science (scientists) as untrustworthy, leaving only the bible as the source for answers. He is a biologist who does not consider macro evolution as valid.

        Reply
        • Austin says:

          I mean, there are plenty of people, scientists or otherwise, who do not consider macroevolution valid for scientific reasons.
          There is no known observed mechanism for goo-to-you evolution. Mutation, deletion, insertion, and frameshift are all the errors that can occur during DNA replication. The problem being they’re all innately a loss of genetic information/capability. Traits can be naturally selected or selectively breed but no amount of time would help a process that’s opposite its own.
          “Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume” -Lee Spectner (Biophysicist with Ph.D. In physics from MIT)
          And this is all assuming that life even started somehow, that irreducible complexity can be explained along with abiogenesis. Both are problems of their own.

          Reply
          • KR says:

            “Mutation, deletion, insertion, and frameshift are all the errors that can occur during DNA replication. The problem being they’re all innately a loss of genetic information/capability.”
            .
            This is a meaningless statement until a stringent definition of “genetic information/capability” has been provided. It’s also completely unfalsifiable without a method of quantifying this information/capability.
            .
            “Traits can be naturally selected or selectively breed but no amount of time would help a process that’s opposite its own.”
            .
            I have no idea what this means – care to elaborate?
            .
            ““Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume” -Lee Spectner (Biophysicist with Ph.D. In physics from MIT)”
            .
            Has he provided what I asked for above, i.e. a definition of information that is relevant to biology and a means of quantifying this information? If not, it’s still a meaningless statement.

          • KR says:

            Oh and you seem to have missed maybe the most important type of mutation when it comes to evolutionary change: duplication.

          • Austin says:

            Genetic Information: the genetic potential of an organism carried in the base sequence of its DNA (or, in some viruses, RNA) according to the genetic code.
            Surely you could have found that yourself right? “new” means it wasn’t there before, obviously. And I add in “/capability” for clarity as the definition always includes potential or capacity of some sort.
            Examples:
            I’m a redhead due to a mutation in my M1CR genes. I have red hair not because I gained NEW genetic information, but because both copies I received from my parents were NO LONGER CAPABLE of producing the brown to black eumelanin pigmentation. All that’s left to present itself is yellow to red phaeomelanin produced by RECESSIVE genes. In essence, I’ve become specialized and lost adaptability/capability. I’ll never be able to pass down a working M1CR gene. Likewise, once a wolf is bred into a chihuahua-like dog, it will never be able to pass down genes for a big body, long nose or hair, ex. We’re both at a LOSS.
            These two examples illustrate naturally selected traits (here probably more akin to genetic drift, but one could argue natural selection if red hair gave my ancestors better survivability say due to attractiveness, and that’s how I came to be, haha) and selective breeding (unnatural selection of traits based on an outside will, the breeder) respectively.
            As a programmer, if DNA is the coding/instructions for the individual randomly messing with a working code, even with the smallest of changes, can lead to huge errors. Hopefully, the code as a whole can still compile and run, where only certain none crucial operations are lost. But it certainly won’t lead to a whole new function being added.
            Conclusion:
            This begs the question that if the claimed mechanisms of evolution (natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, and migration) are nothing but the ways and reasons specialization of a species occurs, with genetic information lost not gained, on what basis would any amount of time help in evolving a species into anything more than it already is? It wouldn’t. It simply isn’t logical to conclude a process of constant loss of information can be the mechanism required for goo-to-you evolution. Given time there is no increase in information, capability, or complexity.
            Finally:
            Words, sentences, coding all have meaning. If you’re only looking to dismiss and not add to the conversation then it’s dead. If you have some honest questions, maybe an assertion for a mechanism that adds genetic information could keep talking. But I feel I was nearly redundant here, spoonfeeding even, and would prefer not to have to do so again. Perhaps educating yourself on some of the topical terms would be a place to start? From there, if you’re seeking truth, it might just be that all living things were originally created with deep genetic complexity to give them the highest possibility of survival. So as they spread out across the globe and errors began to occur they would have the opportunity to adapt and survive to changing environments and influence. This is called the Creation Orchard, versus the Evolution Tree.
            Anyway, hope this helps. Take care!

          • KR says:

            “Genetic Information: the genetic potential of an organism carried in the base sequence of its DNA (or, in some viruses, RNA) according to the genetic code.”
            .
            Potential is to me something very different from information and we still have the problem of quantifying it (which we need to do in order to find out if it decreases by mutation) but that’s not my main point.
            .
            Let’s say I accept that mutations decrease genetic potential. Your premise was that there is no mechanism that can explain macroevolution but I don’t see how mutations decreasing genetic potential supports this claim. Macroevolution is any evolutionary change at or above the species level, i.e. speciation is by definition a macroevolutionary process.
            .
            I suppose speciation can be said to decrease genetic potential, since the formation of new species is essentially an irreversible process, a fork in the evolutionary tree that’s not going to close back on itself. In that sense, every speciation point represents some doors being closed forever. Far from being a problem for evolutionary theory, however, this species barrier is an inevitable consequence of the evolutionary mechanisms. IOW, this kind of decrease in genetic potential is exactly what the theory predicts.
            .
            I find it interesting that you use the MC1R gene as an example, because studies done on this very gene in the rock pocket mouse (e.g. Nachman et al. , 2003) have confirmed what evolution has shown so many times before: there’s more than one way to skin a cat. Rock pocket mice are generally light-coloured and live on light-coloured rock. There are, however, polulations of rock pocket mice that live in areas where the ground is covered by dark lava and these mice tend to be dark in colour. The obvious selective pressure here is predation, where mice whose colour doesn’t match the background are easy prey.
            .
            What’s interesting is that the mutations that lead to dark colouring are not the same in all mouse populations. There are populations of dark-coloured rock pocket mice where the pigmentation is due to a mutation in a completely different gene not associated with MC1R. It would seem that this “loss of potential” isn’t as clear-cut as you want us to believe – at least some of the time when one door closes, another can open. Obviously, individuals don’t evolve, populations do and while a trait is lost in one individual, this doesn’t mean it’s lost in the population.
            .
            “As a programmer, if DNA is the coding/instructions for the individual randomly messing with a working code, even with the smallest of changes, can lead to huge errors. Hopefully, the code as a whole can still compile and run, where only certain none crucial operations are lost. But it certainly won’t lead to a whole new function being added.”
            .
            I don’t think computer code is a good analogy for biological evolution. A computer code is designed for a specific function, while biological evolution often shows examples of co-option where a mutation can lead to a different function of a protein than the original one.
            .
            “This begs the question that if the claimed mechanisms of evolution (natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, and migration) are nothing but the ways and reasons specialization of a species occurs, with genetic information lost not gained, on what basis would any amount of time help in evolving a species into anything more than it already is? It wouldn’t.”
            .
            “More” in what sense? You keep piling on these terms but if you can’t define what they mean, your statements are, quite literally, meaningless. I note that were’re back to “information” from “potential” – I still see these as completely different things. As I’ve already mentioned, specialization is not an argument against macroevolution, it’s an inevitable result of the evolutionary process. In fact, every speciation process can be said to be an example of specialization.
            .
            “It simply isn’t logical to conclude a process of constant loss of information can be the mechanism required for goo-to-you evolution. Given time there is no increase in information, capability, or complexity.”
            .
            Again, to support your claim that information is being lost, you need to supply a method for quantitating this information.
            .
            “Words, sentences, coding all have meaning. If you’re only looking to dismiss and not add to the conversation then it’s dead. If you have some honest questions, maybe an assertion for a mechanism that adds genetic information could keep talking”.
            .
            I’m asking you to justify your claims, which seems like a perfectly reasonable request – especially since you seem to be questioning the fundamental theory in biology. As for a mechanism, how about a duplication mutation where one of the copies through subsequent mutations gains a different function from the original. The genetic evidence indicates that this has happened many times through evolutionary history. Can you explain why this doesn’t constitute a gain in information and/or complexity?
            .
            “Perhaps educating yourself on some of the topical terms would be a place to start? From there, if you’re seeking truth, it might just be that all living things were originally created with deep genetic complexity to give them the highest possibility of survival.”
            .
            I constantly try to educate myself on this subject and many others that interest me. One thing my studies have shown me is that the fossil record doesn’t indicate a complex start that has since evolved to be less complex – if anything we see the opposite. We also don’t see any indication that evolution has any kind of foresight. If it did, we wouldn’t expect to see the rate of extinction we’re seeing. At least 99.99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct.
            .
            This would be perfectly consistent with an unguided evolutionary process with a basically random component (mutation). It’s more difficult to reconcile with a scenario where life was created for a specific purpose – unless the creator was extremely wasteful (or incompetent).
            .
            “So as they spread out across the globe and errors began to occur they would have the opportunity to adapt and survive to changing environments and influence. This is called the Creation Orchard, versus the Evolution Tree.”
            .
            It seems to me that some of those “errors” were exactly what gave life the ability to survive in changing environments. That’s the problem with your view. You seem to assume that this “information” or “capability” is something inherent in the organism but this is clearly too simplistic. What matters from an evolutionary perspective is functionality and this will always be context-dependent. What is detrimental in one environment may be a benefit in another.

          • toby says:

            Words, sentences, coding all have meaning.
            Tree rings have meaning. Striations in rock layers have meaning. The shapes and composition of molecules have meaning. There are a couple of problems with your position.
            1) As a theist you literally believe EVERYTHING is designed. From a quark to a giant sequoia to you. This is why KR is trying to pry out of you how you’re measuring information. Because according to your worldview you are awash in things with information because they were designed that way. How then do you know what isn’t information? What is a state of no information like or is it even possible?
            2) Do you see that information seems to only exist as inferences in brains? There’s no reason to think that information has anything to do with the existence of things, only that information we infer is tied with our ability to understand things. I see no reason to believe that information was placed in rocks or trees or us by any intelligent design.

      • Brian says:

        TGM, I would agree that the scientific process is useful and can help us understand what is true about our physical world. To try and dissociate the process from the people that engage in the process, however, seems naive. Science does not happen without people pushing on the pipets. I get the point you’re trying to make, but we need to talk about science in the context in which it actually happens.

        You mention that the article I cited was from the “popular economics press”. I inferred from this comment that you don’t give as much weight to this article as one that comes from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. So how about this one:

        https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

        Many skeptics of religion, specifically Christianity on this site, often call into question the reliability of the historical records contained in the Bible. I think that’s a legitimate line of questioning. I was simply bringing to light that the reliability of the scientific literature has been called into question by scientists themselves as well. So if one wants to place their trust in ‘science’, then they should be aware that trust may not be on ground as solid as they would like.

        That’s it, nothing more.

        Reply
        • TGM says:

          You are correct that I am not inclined to give much weight to the popular media. Recent history alone should give pause. But it’s even worse for science journalism which spoon feeds bad science to illiterates. Watch what passes for science journalism anytime someone puts a mic in front of Elon Musk’s mug. In this case, my primary objection, for reasons I mentioned, was to the phrase “trust, but verify” quoted directly from that article.

          Reply
          • Brian says:

            If you go back to my previous comment, I never argued that professional journals are unreliable. I cited a professional journal article in support of the proposition that many scientific research findings, which are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, are not reproducible. And furthermore, that this criticism comes from within the scientific community.

  3. james archbold says:

    The world is clearly not 6000 years old. To defer to the supernatural for guidance, treating mental illness as demon possession.. To describe these beliefs as not being in conflict with accepted science or in the words of the author ‘ ‘as only shallow conflict’ is plainly absurd to anyone with an objective open mind..It is no surprise that young people are leaving the church in droves when they leave the myopic confines of their fundamentalist upbringing.. and long may it be the case.

    Reply
  4. Peter Punin says:

    First of all, my apologies for my English. My thinking and teaching language is French. Certainly, for the last ten years, I am publishing in English. With some application, it does not seem too bad; the English native speakers who kindly review my intermediary drafts, generally have little to fix.
    Well, but here, being under time pressure, I must I have to go very fast and just can try to do my best.

    Personally I think there is no reason for a war between science and Christian faith. The current argument going in this direction – and I completely agree with it – goes back to medieval scholastic philosophy. On the one hand, it seems plausible that God as the Creator of everything allows humans to understand His Creation, at least to some extent. On the other hand, science is the attempt – nothing more but an attempt; most modern scientists agree with this point – to understand our world, in turn just to some extent and step by step. So, in principle, there is no dichotomy between Christian faith and science.
    There still are other arguments, perhaps more specific with regard to the alleged opposition between Christian faith and science. Contrarily to other religions, Christianity does not ask a literal reading of the Sacred Scripture. Far from being an arbitrary expression of some modernism, this point is anchored in the Old Testament Itself. In the Exodus, Moses, after having met God on Mount Sinai, comes back to his people which, meanwhile had fallen back into polytheism. Overwhelmed by anger, he breaks the Law Tables he had received by God. Later, God accepts to reconstitute the Tables, nevertheless, He claims from Moses some “collaboration.” The initial – perfect – version of the Table was God’s own work. The second version, issued from a collaboration between God and a human is not perfect. Of course, God still makes the essential, but nowadays asks humans to assume their own responsibilities, comprising their understanding of the Scripture.
    Like James Archbold, I do not believe that our Earth is 6000 years old, nor that is was created in six days, at least with regard to what humans understand by “six days”; for God, “six days” perhaps another meaning. For me biological evolution is evident (see below), diseases can be explained by viruses or bacteria, without referring to the Demon, and so on. And yet, for the Christian believer I am, the Scripture represents God’s own truth, and there is no contradiction. God Himself asks us to interpret the Scriptures inspired by him, in order to reach a better understanding of His Words actually reconstituted by humans.

    Well, faith and science are not opposed. So, when people try to oppose faith and science, they compare the incomparable.
    Faith is above all a question of God’s grace. People having become believers during their life often say that they met God. Probably it is extremely rare that atheists or agnostics because of a “scientific proof of God’s existence.” Symmetrically, if you have the chance to share faith in God, probably you will not loose it because of a “scientific proof of God’s non-existence.”
    German philosopher Kant, a fervent Protestant Christian said that the human reason can neither prove, nor refute God’s existence; subsequently, faith we share or not must not be confused with reason everybody possesses.

    Problems begin when pure beliefs abusively qualified as scientific knowledge are opposed to Christian faith assumed as such. The debate about ID largely illustrates this point.
    For a Christian believer open with regard to science, biological evolution is a scientific fact. On the other hand, God as the Creator – always for a Christian believer – necessarily is behind evolution. As long as we share Christian faith, there is nothing to “prove.” Certainly, in the eyes of non-believers, Christian faith is just a special case of belief. Well, let us assume it.
    Now, concerning the allegedly “scientific” explanation of evolution, there are big lacks. First, if we are able to model or to simulate a given phenomenon, this does not necessarily mean that we understand the phenomenon in question. By contrast, if we are not able to model or to simulate a given phenomenon, then we can be sure that the phenomenon in question is not understood. In a perhaps a bit technical article I published three weeks ago on philpapers, I tried to show that we are not able to model or to simulate evolution without human intelligent design; so we are not authorized to claim that evolution can be explained without divine intelligent design.
    https://philarchive.org/rec/PUNIIR-2
    In a more general way, Neo-Darwinism encounters great difficulties concerning physical irreversibility. Yes, I know, our Earth is an open system receiving low-entropy energy from the sun. And there is a lot of stories about dissipative structures, chaos theory and so on. Myself, I am working on a paper about cumulative selection. And yet, Neo-Darwinism, in order to fulfill its lacks related to irreversibility, has to presuppose as “scientific certainties” hyper-complex assumptions scientists working in other fields never would recognize as “scientific.”
    So, from my standpoint, Neo-Darwinists saying that the “synthetic theory of evolution” can “scientifically” prove the “absurdity” of Christian faith, merely oppose pure beliefs abusively qualified as “scientific” to Christian faith we assume – in our quality of believers – as a belief.
    Everyone is free to appreciate the scientific honesty of Neo-Darwinism.

    Reply
  5. javier heras says:

    True science is not in conflict with the Bible. Throughout history science has not been accurate (the earth used to be flat), but when they get the facts correct, they harmonize. Evolution is a theory without scientific proof. Not every true scientist believes it.

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      Scientific theories don’t have ‘proofs’, they have evidence. The theory of evolution is supported by the evidence. The number of scientists who reject it is tiny, and out of those working in biology, even less so. We’ve known the earth is a sphere for as long as science has existed in any meaningful form.

      Reply
  6. Eric Breaux says:

    The reason we even have science is because the belief in a Creator convinced people we should expect predictable and repeatable phenomena, consistent with having been designed with specific capabilities. Otherwise if they believed things could just happen, there’d be no reason to assume such science was a necessary part of reality. This isn’t some Christian revisionist propaganda, non Christian historians acknowledge that the premises of Christianity were the greatest influence for scientific discovery being possible. http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/ https://creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-science
    People had seen for all of history that things happen dependent of specific reactions to other things in nature, but it wasn’t until people carefully considered what was written in the bible that experimental and repeatable science as we know it now started. Clearly just seeing a correlation with things in nature wasn’t enough to conclude there were more complex things going on, without needing to deduce there is a creator. Greek natural philosophy knew there was a dependent relationship between things observed in nature, which of course contributed much to the discovery of science as well, but they never developed methods of experimentation to discover the fundamental processes for how things work. The bible taught that there is order in reality produced by an orderly being who wants us to rejoice in his creation as a testament to his wisdom and power. This influenced scientists to discover how things worked. Islam taught that Allah could do as he pleased so there was no need to see how things worked in nature. Hindu religions taught that this reality is an illusion. Polytheistic religions had no reason to assume there was a consistently working universe, because different deities had designed different phenomena and were constantly in conflict with one another. There’d be no none keeping things stable and consistently designed if there were so many creators making work any number of ways, and starting conflicts, leaving the universe to fend for itself. That’s why most of known science was discovered by Christians. Everything in the universe works a specific way because of how they are designed, and is why the vast majority of scientists who have lived were convinced that it’s all more evidence for God. Bible believing scientist discoveries.
    Physics: Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Maxwell, William Thompson.
    Chemistry: Robert Boyle, John Dalton, William Ramsay.
    Biology: John Ray, Carolus Linnaeus, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Rudolf Virchow, Louis Agassiz, Edward Blyth.
    Geology: Nicolaus Steno, John Woodward, David Brewster, William Buckland, Georges Cuvier.
    Astronomy: Nicolas Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, William Herschel, Edward Maunder.
    Mathematics: Blaise Pascal, Gottfried Leibniz.

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      “Otherwise if they believed things could just happen, there’d be no reason to assume such science was a necessary part of reality.”
      .
      A Godless universe would be the proverbial ‘clockwork universe’, with everything occurring due to the laws of physics. It would be a THEISTIC universe of miracles and the laws being suspended where we wouldn’t expect ‘predictable and repeatable phenomena’.
      .
      Eratosthenes, Euclid, Aristarchus of Samos, Hipparchus and Archimedes all predated the New Testament.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *