Who’s on the side of science now?
The tide is turning, and we need to be ready to ride the wave.
Just like surfers need balance, wisdom, and vision, so do we believers in God need the same if we don’t want to miss the opportunity we have to stake our claim to the mantle of reason. Because the more we discover about our universe, the more it gives evidence for the theistic worldview, and the more it contradicts atheism’s smug assumption of scientific superiority. It’s time to recognize and boldly proclaim that not only are science and faith not in conflict with each other, theism is the worldview better supported by science.
Science, people!
That’s been the taunt and rallying cry of atheists, skeptics, leftists and progressive-types blasted in the direction of religious-types whose beliefs they see as in conflict with modern science. But it’s becoming increasingly apparent that believers in God are the ones on the side of science, and not the God-deniers. Let’s look at a few examples.
Abortion
The threat to Roe v. Wade that the prospect of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the US Supreme Court presents to abortion proponents, many of whom castigate the faithful as backward and bigoted, has them doubling down on claims that cannot be scientifically supported. Contrary to what basic biology teaches, they:
- deny that the developing fetus is human and has been from conception
- deny that the “product of conception” is a unique individual body distinct from the mother’s body
- claim that overturning Roe would necessarily result in many deaths from illegal abortions because, of course, women just get spontaneously pregnant through no fault of their own.
Honestly, it’s like they really don’t know how babies are made. You rarely hear from pro-abortion folks, “practice safe sex,” and never hear, “refrain from sex if you’re not open to conceiving a child by it.” They fail to make the connection between sex and reproduction. Science, people!
Gender
What can one say about the defiantly anti-science views on gender today? Good science, established science, science that is so elementary even elementary school kids understand it, is rejected and denied in the name of progressive ideals. I’ve no doubt that some men and women struggle with gender identity, but that’s a psychological anomaly not a physical one. Gender is hard-wired into our DNA and can be established definitively with a simple blood test.
Yet you have some of the same folks who hold up science as the only source of knowledge and claim that religious belief is in conflict with it, rejecting science in order to protect their progressive ideology. And in protecting their ideology they fail to protect young children whose immature psyches are manipulated for the sake of the science-denying goals of immature and irresponsible adults.
Science
The most ironic example of hypocritically extolling the superiority of science while promoting very unscientific conclusions is in the sciences themselves.
- The scientific and philosophical evidence strongly suggests that the universe had a beginning. Yet even though it seems plainly self-evident that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and scientists are in the business of discerning causes and have no examples of anything else popping into being without one, many choose to ignore the evidence in favor of unscientific theories positing no cause nor explanation for the existence of the universe.
- The awe-inspiring beauty and complexity of living things give unmistakable evidence of design. Yet even though no scientist would fail to recognize and credit design as an explanation for far less complex man-made objects, most of them do dismiss the design hypothesis for extremely complicated, incredibly precise, and informationally-rich biological life. Francis Crick’s admonition is representative of this rejection of logical science: “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”(1)
- The fine-tuning of the universe – the discovery that multiple constants and quantities must have just the right values for any life at all to exist – is a fact accepted by most cosmologists and astrophysicists. Yet even though the likelihood of all of them falling into the exact range by chance alone is so astronomically small as to be effectively impossible, many scientists reject the obvious inference to an intelligence behind the fine-tuning and resort to wild speculations like an infinite number of universes, one of which is bound to have the values we find in ours, so they say.
If theism is true, then everything else that is true will support it. Scientific discoveries have buoyed the theistic worldview and I believe will continue to as more of our incredible universe and the incredible life within it is explored and analyzed. The mother of all waves is on the horizon. Let’s make sure we can ride it!
” The awe-inspiring beauty and complexity of living things give unmistakable evidence of design.”
I don’t understand that idea. There you present two things, a Designer and things that we feel are Beautiful. What I miss here is what connects the two. The argument goes 1-> nothing -> three.
Where is part two that links the two ends?
LikeLike
Though I do believe most of the beauty in our universe is designed, I wouldn’t make a case for design on beauty alone. But complexity…the incredible way our bodies are constructed to enable us to do all the things we can do, the intricate processes that go on within a tiny cell, DNA…these are all obvious examples of design.
LikeLike
I don’t see how you can say those features are ‘obvious’ examples of (divine) design. What is it about the intricacy that cannot be explained by incremental changes over an unimaginably vast passage of time?
Bear in mind, answer needs to be obvious doesn’t it?
LikeLike
It is logically possible that “the intricacy [can] be explained by incremental changes over an unimaginably vast passage of time.” But the appearance of design is obvious enough that even Richard Dawkins said, “Living objects…look designed, they look overwhelmingly as though they’re designed.” And the most logical and scientific explanation for something that looks “overwhelmingly” designed is that it was.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Looks designed” is a subjective opinion generated in beings that naturally look for patterns around them. To then conclude that the design idea is a logical outcome is missing one logical step. Subjective appearance is not cause-effect link. It doesn’t matter how overwhelming a feeling is, that does not make it fact.
LikeLike
Let me ask you something…would it be reasonable to believe that Mount Rushmore could be “explained by incremental changes over an unimaginably vast passage of time?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
What does yous question mean? Incremental changes in height, erosion?
LikeLike
You know what the question means. And you’re evading it.
LikeLike
I am certainly not evading your question. The question makes no sense, I can’t tell what you want to know. I have asked for clarification; what’s wrong with doing that?
What gives you the right to presume you know what I’m thinking better than I do?
LikeLike
The question makes perfect sense, is very easy to understand, and requires a simple Yes or No answer. I will rephrase my comment to, I *believe* you are evading the question.
LikeLike
Repeating your unsupported assertion has added nothing to the question’s clarity. It remains difficult to answer because the question is ambiguous.
Perhaps I need to explain why: ”Incremental’ means small, step by step changes. The problem is- step by step chsnges in what? Is it mountain building (orogeny), erosion which increases each winter or even something to do with those carvings on one face of tbe mountain. I hinted at these queries but you have not clarified on the kind of increment you are interested in. Do you really want to discuss geology?
Simply repeating that your question is clear and hinting that the failing is somehow mine has halted the flow of the conversation. I’m puzzled by this because I thought this would turn into a fruitful and interesting discussion. Was I wrong to think that?
LikeLike
You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so I am completely confident that you understand my question but do not want to answer it. It is not ambiguous and requires no particular knowledge of geology, just common sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person