Criticism of God’s word is nothing new. It was there in the beginning (Gen 3:1) and it lives on today. The ideas are always the same, just repackaged and recopied from someone else. Sometimes the tactic is simple mockery – taking a beautiful work created by someone else and flipping it onto its unbiblical head. It requires some dedication but little imagination. Case-in-point: the most popular visualization of “contradictions” from Project Reason is not much more than a re-hash of Chris Harrison’s original award-winning visualization of cross references.
Tag: science
Scientists routinely study people’s behavior as part of humanity’s quest to better understand ourselves and our universe. Christian theologians use the Bible as their guide while traveling along that same quest. Since the scientific community has a higher percentage of atheists and agnostics than the general population, they approach studies of humanity with a strikingly different worldview from Christians. So, what happens when scientists and theologians try to go about understanding each other?
A recent article on PhysOrg, “God as a drug: The rise of American megachurches“, presents a study on the rise of American Megachurches. Unlike many such studies on religious subjects, it is not an attack piece. It does, of course, ignore God’s role in conversion and largely attributes the growth to sensory and emotional experiences – no surprise there. From the article:
As part of their study, Wellman, Corcoran, and Stockly-Meyerdirk analyzed 470 interviews and about 16,000 surveys on megachurch members’ emotional experiences with their churches. Four themes emerged: salvation/spirituality, acceptance/belonging, admiration for and guidance from the leader, and morality and purpose through service.
Our modern perception of science is that it is an objective search for truth, but we often forget that science is conducted by people. Those people are subject to the same influences and biases as everyone else. While the application of certain methods can reduce the error caused by human imperfections, we cannot deny that paradigms, axioms, and presuppositions heavily influence the world of scientists.
To illustrate this, Creation-Evolution Headlines rewrote the PhysOrg article as though a theologian had conducted a study on the growth of Darwinism. The result of this fictional study is a strikingly accurate description of how many Darwinian “evangelists” view their role. Consider the same paragraph, above, re-imagined from the opposite perspective:
As part of their study, Weller, Corky, and Stocky analyzed 470 interviews and about 16,000 surveys on society members’ emotional experiences with the conferences. Four themes emerged: materialism/scientism, conformity/unity, admiration for and desire for acceptance from peers, and a sense of duty to fight creationism in public outreach.
Both articles are a good read, so check them out. Do you agree that scientists can be influenced by each other in ways that affect their conclusions? How do you think this shapes the narrative of “religion vs. science?” Leave a comment below.
“93% of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) are atheists,” boasts the social media proselytizer who is now all but certain he has presented inarguable evidence that rational, thinking people are drawn away from theism. It comes from a survey conducted in 1996 and published in the journal Nature. I have seen this statistic often enough that I decided to dig into it a bit further. It is now clearer than ever that this survey is an example of selection bias and further supports the assertion that the NAS is intolerant.
Right from the start, the 93% number is a little misleading. 72% disbelieve in God while 23% express doubt or agnosticism. Atheists routinely lump in agnostics in figures like this if it is to their advantage, but agnostics often describe themselves that way to separate their views from their understanding of atheism. But, this may be little more than semantics.
What if we looked at a different group of scientists? When surveyed in 2009, a slight majority (51%) or respondents from the American Association for the Advancement of Science expressed belief in God (or a “higher power”) and 41% indicated disbelief. It turns out this survey matches rather closely with a survey done 100 years ago, even showing a slight increase in theism among the scientists polled.
Still a different group, university professors, end up somewhere in the middle of these figures. A 2010 survey found 34% were atheists, 30% agnostic, and 27% expressed some level of belief in God.
So far it’s clear that while scientists are far more likely than the general population to be atheist, the 93% figure is simply not an accurate representation of scientists as a whole. Now, let’s extend the data even further.
In academia, the consequences for your conclusion being wrong is a retraction from an academic journal, a scathing peer review, or wider public scrutiny. In other environments, the cost of being wrong are people’s very lives. Certainly few people think that doctors work with anything other than an evidence-based evaluation and decision-making process. If they were to do otherwise, they face severe civil or criminal penalties while their patient suffers physically to varying degrees. Physicians must rely on science when it really counts.
Are these rational-minded professionals also inclined to be atheists? Not quite. As of 2005, 76% expressed belief in God. While this is still lower than the general population, it turns out that doctors are actually more likely to attend religious services – 90% of them vs. only 81% of Americans as a whole. If we were to accept that the majority opinion of an evidence-based profession proves that thinking people should accept their view, we may hold this up as a persuasive argument for converting to theism. I do not recommend that approach for the reasons explained throughout this article.
What might explain these differences in beliefs across a range of scientists? As an engineer who also relies heavily on facts to form conclusions, I prefer not to speculate too far without doing more extensive research. Allow me to offer two possible causes to consider: indoctrination and culture. American universities are now breeding grounds for anti-religious minds. Over time our culture has trended the same direction, and the sub-culture in academic circles is likely to influence the distribution of religious beliefs in that group.
In earlier times, higher institutes of learning we’re built by Christians and Western society was far more deeply committed to biblical truth. Indeed, the greatest scientific minds who pioneered most of the major branches of science were theists. This fact alone indicates that theistic belief is no detriment to the advancement of scientific inquiry, if not the very basis for science itself.
When we consider the full range of data and look at it objectively, we find every good reason to reject the “majority of scientists are atheists” argument so often presented. The wide disparity among different groups of scientists also shows that they are human like everyone else, subject to the same influences and pressures that shape our ideas about the world. This is why we must always look to a higher standard than ourselves. Let us trust instead in the words of an all-knowing being, not in the wisdom of men with limited knowledge or understanding (1 Cor 2:5).
Many scientists today argue that a belief in God as the Creator is detrimental to the advancement of our knowledge. Today’s most-quoted scientists, especially in the field of Biology, directly attack religion in large public forums. Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary biologist, had this to say in his book, The Blind Watchmaker:
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).
And it’s not limited to biology. World-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking is on record as saying:
I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark
But, has it always been this way? Is it necessarily true that the Bible’s history of our origins is at odds with the practice of scientific inquiry? To the contrary, many (if not most) of the scientists who either founded their field of study or at least are credited with its most important advancements routinely saw their work as seeking to better understand God through his Creation. The quotes below are a sample of what these men who were profoundly influential in a wide array of fields said years ago.
There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error: first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power.
-Francis Bacon, Scientific Method
Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.
-Isaac Newton, Physics, Mathematics
Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors.
-Isaac Newton
O God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee.
-Johannes Kepler, Astronomy
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.
-Louis Pasteur, Medicine
Finite man cannot begin to comprehend an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and infinite God … I find it best to accept God through faith, as an intelligent will, perfect in goodness and wisdom, revealing Himself through His creation.
-Werner Von Braun, Rocket Science
The conduct of God, who disposes all things kindly, is to put religion into the mind by reason, and into the heart by grace. But to will to put it into the mind and heart by force and threats is not to put religion there, but terror.
-Blaise Pascal, Hydraulics
When with bold telescopes I survey the old and newly discovered stars and planets when with excellent microscopes I discern the unimitable subtility of nature’s curious workmanship; and when, in a word, by the help of anatomical knives, and the light of chemical furnaces, I study the book of nature I find myself oftentimes reduced to exclaim with the Psalmist, How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! In wisdom hast Thou made them all!
-Robert Boyle, Chemistry
The flowers’ leaves… serve as bridal beds which the Creator has so gloriously arranged, adorned with such noble bed curtains, and perfumed with so many soft scents that the bridegroom with his bride might there celebrate their nuptials with so much the greater solemnity.
-Carl Linnaeus, Taxonomy
It is His work,” he reminded them; “and He alone carried me thus far through all my trials and enabled me to triumph over the obstacles, physical and moral, which opposed me. ‘Not unto us, not unto us, by to Thy name, O Lord, be all the praise.’
-Samuel Morse, Inventor
This high-quality, visually engaging presentation by Mark Spence, the Dean of the School of Biblical Evangelism, gives clear reasons why the Bible can be trusted as inerrant, inspired, and infallible.
If our universe and life on Earth didn’t evolve through natural forces, what did happen? Kent Hovind explains the Bible’s historical account and backs up his faith with sound reason.
Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?
-Isaiah 29:16
Atheists often claim that belief in supernatural creation is a science-stopper. Christians explain everything in nature by claiming “God did it,” or so the argument goes. As usual, those that reject God’s wisdom have turned the truth upside-down. Evolutionism, not creationism, has slowed scientific progress in some areas and stopped it altogether in others. In the area of biology, one scientist starts with the premise that every part of an organism is there for a purpose and seeks to discover each one’s function. Another scientist expects to find structures which have no useful function and turns away from further investigation.
In the 1925 Scopes trial, “The trial of the Century,” the defense argued that the presence of 180 vestigial organs in the human body is evidence of Darwinism. “Vestigial” organs are those believed to have no useful function because they are “leftovers” from an earlier stage of evolution. Among the organs presented during the trial were the: appendix, pituitary gland, and coccyx (tail bone). Since then, scientists have discovered useful functions for nearly all organs once considered vestiges of our past development. The appendix plays a role in early development and immunity. The pituitary glandcontrols several other glands and produces a growth hormone. The coccyx has many muscles attached to it, making it something like a structural “keystone.” These discoveries have forced evolutionary biologists to modify their definition of “vestigial” to allow for some level of functionality, but they have not abandoned the concept altogether.
The modern version of this argument is something called “junk DNA,” formally known aspseudogenes. These are sections of DNA that currently appear to have no purpose and therefore are presumed to be left over from past mutations. In contradiction to this perspective shaped by the naturalistic paradigm, some scientists are investigating these genetic regions and are beginning to discover functions for them. For instance, a University of Michigan study suggests that some pseudogenes assist in repairing broken strands of DNA.
If more scientists today were devising experiments to discover the uses of pseudogenes rather than drawing branches on an imaginary ancestral tree, how much more might we know today about the building blocks of life? If those in 1925 had not proclaimed the appendix and other organs as vestigial, how much sooner might we have learned of their importance and applied that knowledge to modern medicine?
When we begin with a different viewpoint that every living thing and every part within it is intricately designed by a mindful Creator, we have good reasons to perform scientific investigations to determine the logic behind constructs that we do not yet understand. In fact, one might even argue that this principle of design is the basis for modern science. The real science-stopper is evolutionism or any other belief system that denies that there is any purpose behind the beauty we observe, leaving us with less reason to experiment, to wonder, to study, or to know anything more.
Grand Canyon Flood
Watch Eric Hovind from Creation Science Evangelism demonstrate why the Grand Canyon could not have formed according to the “accepted” view.