Are Science and Religion Opposed?

We hear this claim all the time from the new atheist crowd.  So, is it true?  The idea that science and religion are opposed is absolutely ludicrous. However, the religion of atheism is definitely opposed to science. And for obvious reasons.

Something far too many people, including an embarrassing number of PhD scientists, are woefully ignorant of the fact that all science is founded upon philosophical and religious assumptions. Atheism provides no metaphysical assumptions upon which any science at all can be rightfully rooted.

FACT: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Walter Reed, Dmitri Mendeleev, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Kelvin, Faraday, Pasteur, Townes, Mendel, Marconi, world leader in sickle cell anemia research, Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Werner von Braun, Pupin, Walter Lammerts, AE Wilder Smith – with 3 earned doctorates in science! Raymond Damadian Inventer of the MRI,  … and on and on the list goes … were all men of very strong religious beliefs. Indeed, they were all theists and creationists and IDists.

FACT: Modern science and the modern scientific method were founded and established by creationists, not merely religious people but creationists.

Thus the exceedingly foolish claim of the new atheists, that science and religion are somehow opposed, and that one must choose one or the other to establish ones’ facts, is simply stunningly wrong. That claim means that the people who started modern science were the same people whose beliefs opposed science. So what do the atheist do in response to the historical facts? They pretend that somehow, these creationists, these deeply religious people who founded modern science, did so without any reference to their beliefs, that their science had nothing to do with what they believed. And of course, that is more utter nonsense.

FACT: The founders of modern science rooted that science in their theism.  As C.S. Lewis so rightly stated,

“Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator.” – M. D. Aeschliman C. S. Lewis on Mere Science 1998 First Things 86 (October, 1998): 16-18.

And as even atheist philosopher of science, Michael Ruse wrote,

“Most people think that science and religion are, and necessarily must be, in conflict. In fact, this ‘warfare’ metaphor, so beloved of nineteenth-century rationalists, has only a tenuous application to reality. For most of the history of Christianity; it was the Church that was the home of science.” – p. 671 in Ruse, Michael Introduction to Part X (Creationism) in The philosophy of biology edited by David L. Hull and Michael Ruse. 1998

In fact, virtually all the historical experts agree on the fact that it was withing the Christianity that modern science was founded and grew. Indeed, a fact that ought to be disturbing for atheists, but obviously isn’t because their ignorance of the history of science is so profound, is that virtually NO atheists were involved in the establishing of modern science. And for good reason.  Atheism does not allow for any view of the world that includes a reason to believe that law, order and comprehensibility ought to characterize the universe.  This fact has been discussed in great detail in the philosophy of science by people like Rodney Stark in his book, “For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery”.

Or even Loren Eiseley who wrote,

‘The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.’ – Eiseley, L., Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It, Doubleday, Anchor, New York, 1961

And distinguished University Professor at Seton Hall University, in South Orange, New Jersey, Stanley Jaki, a leading contributor to the philosophy and the history of science wrote,

“The scientific quest found fertile soil only when this faith in a personal, rational Creator had truly permeated a whole culture, beginning with the centuries of the High Middle Ages. It was that faith which provided, in sufficient measure, confidence in the rationality of the universe, trust in progress, and appreciation of the quantitative method, all indispensable ingredients of the scientific quest.” — Jaki, Stanley L., Creation and Science (1974)

“The birth of science came only when the seeds of science were planted in a soil which Christian faith in God made receptive to natural theology and to the epistemology implied in it. The transition from that first viable birth to maturity was made neither in the name of Baconian empiricism nor in the name of Cartesian rationalism. The transition was made in a perspective adopted by Newton, chiefly responsible for completing that transition. The next two centuries saw the rise of philosophical movements, all hostile to natural theology. Whatever lip service to science, they all posed a threat to it. The blows they aimed at man’s knowledge of God were as many blows a knowledge, at science, and at the rationality of the universe. All those philosophical movements from Hume to Mach also meant an explicit endorsement of the idea of eternal returns, an idea which from the viewpoint of science acted as the chief road into its great historical blind alleys.” – S. Jaki, The Road of Science and the Ways to God, p. 160

Dr. Ronald Numbers, Professor of the History of Science and Medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison stated,

“The greatest myth in the history of science and religion holds that they have been in a state of constant conflict. No one bears more responsibility for promoting this notion than two nineteenth-century American polemicists: Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918) and John William Draper (1811-1882)… Historians of science have known for years that White’s and Draper’s accounts are more propaganda than history.” (Galileo Goes to Jail. pg.1,2,6 https://goo.gl/F65JJD)

Indeed, White is one of the principle characters responsible for the lies and false ideas that have spread opposing science and religion. Again, there were virtually no atheists involved in the founding of modern science. Atheism offers no grounds for any belief in any kind of science whatsoever. Atheism has no reason to believe the universe is ordered and understandable.

FACT: 65% of all Nobels were won by Christians.

Worse still, the Christian founders of modern science managed to open the world and change world history by developing a method of inquiry into the natural world based on that which is allegedly “diametrically opposed” to everything they believed! Thus making the founding of modern science a MIRACLE.

The ignorance and stupidity of claiming science and religion are opposed, is thus revealed to be simply astonishing.

Mind-Gears-sm

Advertisements

Theistic Evolution?

 

The truth? “Theistic evolution” is an even bigger farce than materialist Neo-Darwinian evolution. Just as all the materialist Darwinists say when the poor theistic evolutionist has his back turned and they’re being truthful and saying what they really think.

“Theistic evolution” is an insult to Jesus Christ and the gospel. It implies that Christ is the descendant of some ancient extinct ape, and going further back, the descendant of some single-celled, barely more than goo, less than bacteria, unknown entity. This borders on blasphemy.

Darwinian evolution itself is the greatest blunder and shame in the history of science.
It has been proved wrong so many times it isn’t funny. Yet the deeply deceived Darwinians persist in claiming that it’s “as proved as gravity”. By which they mean mere micro-evolution and through which they wrongly pretend that macro-evolution is an extension.

They could not possibly be more wrong, as all the recent evidence tells us loud and clear. Macro, which in the correct definition, occurs above the taxonomic Family, has exactly zero evidence of ever having occurred and less than zero observation in the real world. Macro-evolution is an imaginary tale worthy of the worst fiction.

Indeed, the evidence is utterly lacking, so what have the Darwinians done to save their precious hypothesis? They did what they always do – move the goalposts, redefine the meaning of macro so that it includes everything above the mere species level. Frauds.

Here’s what that means:

darwinian-definition-scale

Seriously? This redefinition of what macro-evolution is, implies that more than 90% of all evolution, is macro-evolution! Which is supposed to mean MAJOR change, not trivial change or mere variation and adaptation within the Family. In other words, the Darwinists have basically redefined macro-evolution almost right out of existence, since it includes virtually everything in the taxonomic classification.

Oh, the dishonesty! And curiously, under the new definition, all creationists are in fact Darwinists. Such slight of hand should make the Darwinians red in the faced ashamed of themselves.  Eliminate the opposition by defining him as part of your own camp. The cowardice and fraud in this are stunning.

The ONLY reasons why Darwinian evolution, by which I mean the Modern Synthesis, persists are religious reasons, not scientific ones. And the only reason theistic evolution has arisen among so many misinformed, misguided Christians and others, is because they can’t handle the peer-pressure of being mocked and ridiculed for claiming special creation is true, or else because they are incompetent in research and poor logicians, failing to see the blatant contradictions.

Or, they simply have been deceived by the way Darwinists are always pulling rabbits out of their magic hat and claiming proof of something. Smoke and mirrors have always been the major evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution. Precious little real evidence exists and all real evidence only supports minor, microevolution. The Darwinians simply gratuitously extrapolate that into macro, and without any scientific warrant for it. Yet much scientific evidence warrants against it.

Theistic evolutionists are the worst in many ways. They are maligned and mocked both by creationists and materialist evolutionists. Poor befuddled souls. They are stuck between the proverbial “rock and a hard place”. Sandwiched between wanting to cling to Christianity and yet not wanting to feel stupid by rejecting what needs to be rejected just because it’s the status quo.

There is a cross to bear for upholding creation and rejecting Darwinism. They will not carry that cross. And that belies their true state of heart.

They have adopted a new religion, all while giving lip service to Christianity. Neo Darwinism is religion and that is why it still remains, in spite of the massive evidence against it and in spite of so many top-level evolutionists abandoning it.

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion – a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality… Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.*” -Michael Ruse (atheist evolutionist), “Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians,” National Post, May 13, 2000, p. B-3

“History will ultimately judge neo-darwinisim as “a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuation of Anglo-Saxon biology.” In her view proponents of the standard theory “wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin – having mistaken him… Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations by gene-level natural selection), is a complete funk.”
– Lynn Margulis – late professor of biology, University of Massachusetts

“Today, many evolutionists assume that a large number of small mutations can account for macroevolution. This conclusion is not based on experimental evidence, but on the assumption that the evidence for microevolution can be extrapolated to macroevolution. The empirical evidence, however, is clear — neither macromutations nor micromutations can provide a significant source of new genetic information.
Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or tissues” (Margulis and Sagan, 2002, 11). What it eventually leads to is sickness and death.”

Margulis, when president of Sigma Xi, added that “many biologists claim they know for sure that random mutation (purposeless chance) is the source of inherited variation that generates new species of life. . . . `No!’ I say” (Lynn Margulis, late biologist and member of the National Academy of Sciences, 2006, 194).

She also stated, “New mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”

Former wife of Carl Sagan, she exposed the truth in her book Acquiring Genomes:
“Many ways to induce mutations are known but none lead to new organisms. . . . Even professional evolutionary biologists are hard put to find mutations, experimentally induced or spontaneous, that lead in a positive way to evolutionary change” (Lynn Margulis, Acquiring Genomes)

Only ignorant and gullible people or stubborn, religiously devout evolutionists still believe in the neo Darwinian fairy tale.

If Darwinian evolution had been treated correctly, treated according to the much-touted but little-practiced claim of science’s self-correction, it would have been relegated to the garbage dump of pseudo-scientific nonsense decades ago.

Theistic evolutionists are in the worst possible position, trying to have God and Darwin simultaneously. Even though Darwinism and the gospel are diametrically opposed. Nothing degrades the value of human life like Darwinism does. The poor misguided theistic evolutionists are obliged to turn a blind eye to that fact. They are obliged to adopt the Darwinian mode while pretending not to know what it means.

The real Darwinians know exactly what it means. As the late William Provine wrote:

“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.”

“As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.”

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine

How can it get more obvious? It cannot. Yet theistic evolutionists love to lie to themselves pretending that this is not the case at all!

Ruse and Wilson wrote it more clearly (my Caps):

“The time has come to take seriously the fact that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day. In particular, we must recognize our biological past in trying to understand our interactions with others. We must think again especially about our so-called ‘ethical principles.’ The question is not whether biology—specifically, our evolution—is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will… In an important sense, ETHICS AS WE UNDERSTAND IT IS AN ILLUSION fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding… ETHICS IS ILLUSORY inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place. – Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, , ed. J. E. Hutchingson, Orlando, Fl.:Harcourt and Brace, 1991.

The crux of the evolutionary biology position indeed.

Even Niles Eldridge stated,

“Darwin did more to secularize the Western world than any other single thinker in history.” – Niles Eldredge

For sure. Let the dishonest theistic evolutionists wake up and smell the lies they are pushing for Darwin, all contrary to the truth of their alleged Christianity.