“Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died [I would say has been subtly slaughtered by the idiocy of materialism and secular humanism]…” M. D. Aeschliman C. S. Lewis on Mere Science 1998 First Things 86 (October, 1998)
“The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. This is already evident in the reckless statements of Haeckel and in the shifty, devious and histrionic argumentation of T. H. Huxley… This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion.”— W.R. Thompson, “Introduction,” to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin’s, Origin of Species (1956 edition).
“Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
Not even close.Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe and why it is here?
Not even close.Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.Are physicists and biologists willing to believe anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark.Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on.”
As Francis Crick put it,
“The Astonishing Hypothesis is that “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing”. (p. 3) -Francis Crick (1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons
