Science nature and religion pt 2

religion-vs-evolution

Professor D.M.S. Watson, one of the leading biologists and science writers of his day, demonstrated the atheistic bias behind much evolutionary thinking when he wrote: Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.[1]

So it’s not a question of biased religious creationists versus objective scientific evolutionists; rather, it is the biases of the Christian religion versus the biases of the religion of secular humanism resulting in different interpretations of the same scientific data.

As the anti-creationist science writer Boyce Rensberger admits: At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.[2]

It’s not really a question of who is biased, but which bias is the correct bias with which to be biased!

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and one of the world’s leaders in promoting evolutionary biology. He recently wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation regardless of whether or not the facts support it: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”[3]

The leading chemist Philip Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, echoed similar thoughts in a column he wrote for The Scientist: “Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”[4]

In biology, some prominent academics have recently queried the usefulness of evolution. A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, commented: “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”[5]

It should thus not be surprising, although it is for many people, that most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation. The list of creationist scientists is impressive.[6] A sample:

Physics—Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin Chemistry—Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay Biology—Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz Geology—Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier Astronomy—Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder Mathematics—Pascal, Leibnitz, Euler

Antibiotics were developed by the creationist Jew, Ernst Chain. What about other advances in science that are credited with the drop in deaths of children due to disease and elimination of smallpox and polio? No joy here for the evolutionists either. Many of the most important medical advances were made without the slightest use being made of evolution: Vaccination was discovered by Edward Jenner (1749–1823—note that Darwin published Origin in 1859). Aseptic surgery by Joseph Lister, creationist (1827–1912). Anaesthesia by James Young Simpson (1811–1870), who believed that God was the first anaesthetist, citing Genesis 2:21 (So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.). Germ theory of disease by Louis Pasteur, creationist (1822–1895), who disproved spontaneous generation, still an evolutionary belief. In modern times, we have the outspoken biblical creationist Raymond Damadian (1936– ), inventor of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner,[7],[8] and John Sanford (1950– ), the inventor of the gene gun.

Ok, I’ve got a headache and I imagine you might also. The next part 3 will delve into the Christian roots of Science. A lot of biblical references will be used, so if you are afraid of turning into fire, or dust , or whatever you don’t have to read part 3. But if you want defend your creationism of Intelligent Designer beliefs stick around for the next article – probably to be uploaded next Sunday.

[1] D.M.S. Watson, Adaptation, Nature 124:233, 1929.

[2] Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works (NY: William Morrow 1986), p. 17–18.

[3] Richard Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, 9 January 1997, p. 31

[4] Skell, P.S., Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology, The Scientist 19(16):10, 29 August 2005. Skell wrote a similar article: The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution: Focusing on Darwin and his theory doesn’t further scientific progress, Forbes magazine, www.forbes.com, 23 Feb., 2009.

[5] Wilkins, A.S., Evolutionary processes: a special issue, BioEssays 22:1051–1052, 2000

[6] A. Lamont, 21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible (Australia: Creation Science Foundation, 1995), p. 120–131; H.M. Morris, Men of Science Men of God (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1982).

[7] Mattson, J. and Simon, M., The Pioneers of NMR and Magnetic Resonance in Medicine: The Story of MRI, Bar-Ilan University Press, Jericho, New York, 1996; chapter 8: “Raymond V. Damadian: Originator of the Concept of Whole-Body NMR Scanning (MRI) and Discoverer of the NMR Tissue Relaxation Differences That Made It Possible.”

[8] See also Sarfati, J., Dr Damadian’s vital contribution to MRI: Nobel prize controversy returns, 21–22 October 2006, creation.com/damadian. This documents Dr Damadian’s vital contribution: showing that healthy and diseased tissue could be differentiated. Without this discovery, there would be nothing for MRI to ‘image’.

Advertisements

One response to “Science nature and religion pt 2

  1. Pingback: Possible water on Mars- another laugh-a-thon | Intelligent Design·

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s