Articles » Philosophy

Why secular scientists seek answers they don’t want and don’t expect to find

It scarcely sounds upbeat! Yet John Horgan’s 1996 book The End of Science was a runaway best seller. How could a book on the status of science at the end of the 20th century be hugely entertaining, wonderful, provocative and intellectually bracing as various reviewers proclaimed? For a start, the author is thoroughly familiar with his subject. John Horgan is a senior writer for Scientific American and has won several prestigious awards for his work. In addition, his position enabled him to secure interviews with many of the most influential scientists of our day. His list is a veritable who’s who of famous individuals including astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould, cosmologist Stephen Hawking, evolutionary linguist Noam Chomsky, evolutionist Sir Richard Dawkins, cosmologist Andrei Linde, biologist Lynn Margulis, sociobiologist E. O. Wilson, DNA discoverer Francis Crick and mathematician Claude Shannon (who developed information theory). In some cases Mr. Horgan’s interviews came just in time since scientific philosophers Sir Karl Popper, Paul Feyerabend and David Bohm died within a few months of their interviews in the early 1990s. Read the rest of this entry »

Every young person in school must study science. Most people would agree that a basic understanding of the workings of the human body, or disease organisms, of weather patterns, of plant biology, local ecology, of electricity, etc. are essential to anyone’s functioning successfully in modern society. Despite the relevance of these topics, many people are uninterested or afraid of studying science. As a result, in the United States, for example, we see a relatively low proficiency in this discipline in the general population. An article in the August 15, 1997 issue of the journal Science, considers why this is so. (Gregg Easterbrook. 1997. “Science and God: A Warming Trend?” Science 277 pp. 890-893) According to the article, influential scientists themselves admit two sources of the problem. firstly many students fear that science teachers will attempt to destroy their religious faith. And secondly, science, as taught seems pointless and devoid of meaning, Who would want to pursue such uninspiring material? Not too surprisingly many Christians elect to avoid it as much as possible. The scientists quoted in Easterbrook’s article, for the most part, suggested that students can have their cake and eat it too. They can retain their religious faith while at the same time adopting the views of modern secular science. In this these scientists are wrong. Many of the conclusions of secular science are incompatible with our Christian faith. This does not however mean that Christians should avoid the study of science. Far from it. It merely means that Christians must actively develop critical thinking skills. They must learn to ask probing questions. Read the rest of this entry »

Symbols are powerful tools for communication. Is there anyone who does not know what the golden arches stand for, or the Nike “swoosh”? The Canadian maple leaf for example, and the Olympic five intertwined circles convey images in our minds of completely different institutions – the one a country situated just north of the United States, and the other an international body regulating competitions in amateur sport. In Canada the “crown” refers in symbolic terms to the authority of federal or provincial governments. In the 1960s a circle with an inverted Y inside conjured in everyone’s minds anti-nuclear messages typified by the “Ban-the-Bomb” slogan. In science, a circle with an arrow attached, borrows from Greek mythology. It is supposed to depict Mars (the war god’s) shield and by inference, the male gender. Similarly a circle with a handle was chosen to represent Minerva’s mirror, and by inference, the female gender. Most people recognize these symbols for male and female. Read the rest of this entry »

With sparkling eyes, the baby on the cover of TIME magazine’s 1997 Special Issue “The Age of Discovery”, is ready to reach out for some fascinating object. The theme is a “celebration of mankind’s exploration of the unknown.” However the issue seems most noteworthy for its atheistic and evolutionary bias. For example, one British author, in describing his boyhood enthusiasm for collecting insects, at the same time confides to us: “The life of those Wiltshire woods and rivers and ponds became, as the comfort of God’s presence drained away, so very much more complex than their romantic and theological past suggested. But at 14, this secular revelation was wildly exciting, a liberation from faith.” (p. 41) For author Redmond O’Hanlon, the joys of observing nature were closely connected to his new found enthusiasm for Darwin, which he began to read at that time. Read the rest of this entry »

Indeed it was a “tragedy,” opined an editorial in the New York Times (August 13, 1999). Within this context, naturally enough, the editorialist continued “deep sadness is the most sensible response.” The reader might have been pardoned for suspecting the opinion piece was actually written tongue in cheek. The event which called forth this public mourning was none other than a decision by the State of Kansas’ Board of Education. That action of the Board, according to the NY Times, “makes it more likely that many schools will spend less time on evolution …” Oh really? One might have understood if the newspaper had called the action regrettable or ill-advised, but “tragic?” What was going on here? Read the rest of this entry »

Advance warning of a spectacular media blitz arrived at PBS affiliates as the past school year ended. The memo, dated June 15/01 was entitled “The Evolution Controversy: Use it or Lose it.” According to the memo, the affiliates should prepare not only to promote the eight hour series entitled Evolution, but they were also to promote the very concept of evolution itself. The series would run in September as the new school year began. This project, which was two years in preparation, was co-produced by WGBH Boston (of NOVA fame) and Clear Blue Sky Productions. The program was declared to be a “comprehensive PBS project, not just a television series.” The objective was to reach as many people as possible (including teachers and ten million students over a ten year period). To that end, a feature-rich web site had been prepared as well as a HarperCollins companion book. Among the target audiences the memo listed religious leaders and government officials. These are not usually expected to pay particular attention to general interest science programming. But this was to be no apple pie and motherhood “beauty of nature” sort of show. Indeed one of the “outreach” objectives was to “co-opt existing local dialogue about teaching evolution in schools.” To support this more serious political agenda, the advertising campaign would include television, print media and “guerrilla/viral marketing” whatever that may be (but it doesn’t sound good). Read the rest of this entry »

Among biologists, there have always been mavericks who dared to take a stand for the creation model. Point by point, these scientists have contested evolutionary speculation. But all too often such individuals have seemed like voices crying in the wilderness. The public often perceived creation based arguments as offering little but negativity. It is indeed the case that rearguard skirmishes won’t win a war. What is clearly needed, is a frontal assault on biological thinking. It is time to re-examine the foundations of biology. Thus it was in August 2001 that the Center for Origins Research and Education of Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee; the Institute for Creation Research in El Cajon, California; and Cedarville University of Cedarville, Ohio — jointly sponsored a conference entitled “Discontinuity: Understanding Biology in the Light of Creation.” Read the rest of this entry »

“Everybody” knows, one might suppose, that evolution is about facts and the creation model is about belief. Certainly this was the message of the recent PBS TV series entitled “Evolution” which aired in September 2001. Indeed information sent to all the PBS stations stated this very thing: “All known scientific evidence supports evolution…. New discoveries over the past 150 years have all supported the validity of the theory of evolution.” (PBS Internal Memo. 2001. The Evolution Controversy: Use it or Lose it. Evolution Project / WGBH Boston. p. 5. June 15.) The memo further defined a scientific theory as a “higher level of understanding that ties ‘facts’ together.” (p. 5). As to the creation model, the memo dismissed it as “not science. It is part of a religious belief system…” (p. 6). Such statements and other similar ones over the years have convinced many among the public that science in general and evolution in particular are based on observations from the natural world and thus they are empirically or factually based. The interesting thing is that this is not the modern understanding of science among scientists themselves. They have long since abandoned much concern for actual data. Read the rest of this entry »

Teachers! or parents! What do they know about creativity? How many of us have been provided with a paper and pencil and commanded, urged or cajoled to draw something or write something. But you can’t just produce something on command! You have to have an idea … and ideas are hard to find. I once received a greeting card that declared “Nothing to do so I’ll write … nothing to write so I’ll close.” If we could convince grownups that creativity is a special gift that few of us enjoy very often, maybe then there would be fewer assignments and more spare time for doing nothing. (I know it’s just a dream, teachers and parents are not going to change anytime soon, and this is probably just as well.) Read the rest of this entry »

The genius of the English language, many people say, is that it freely borrows from other languages. For example, the term “déjà vu” is French and it means “already seen.” We might more readily say “been there, done that!” Another equivalent expression is “nothing new under the sun.” Indeed some things are just so-o-o-o predictable. Among current events, none seems more aptly connected to the term déjà vu than the resistance of established scientists to criticism, any criticism, of their views. Read the rest of this entry »

Kurt P. Wise. 2002. Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms about Creation and the Age of the Earth. Broadman and Holman Publishers. Nashville, TN. Paperback. 287 pages.

Few Christians in science today are as qualified as Kurt Wise to talk about origins theory. His field of expertise is fossils and he obtained his Ph.D. in this discipline from Harvard University. His research director was none other than arch-evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould who well understood that Wise was a creationist. After graduation Dr Wise accepted a position in a small Christian college in Tennessee. There he has encouraged a nucleus of like-minded scientists to cooperate on highly technical research of relevance to creation. He does not appreciate superficial efforts. Indeed he has made himself unpopular in some circles through his insistence on high standards in scientific research and in the drawing of conclusions. Thus one might expect his new book to deal with science but it only lightly touches on the issue. What this book does is to provide a Scriptural defense of the creationist position. Read the rest of this entry »

Junior high and high school students wonder what difference it makes whether the universe came about through a long process or whether God spoke all things into existence a relatively short time ago. The main thing, many suggest, is that we are here. Details are irrelevant, so why the big fuss over origins? Read the rest of this entry »

Recently American biologists tried to have a colleague fired from his job: a dual appointment to the National Institute of Health and the Smithsonian Institution. These mainstream scientists were extremely annoyed, on philosophical grounds, with Dr. Richard Sternberg. Read the rest of this entry »

Intelligent design, and indirectly the creation model, have been in the news a lot lately. Not surprisingly, most of the articles have been sympathetic, not to intelligent design, but to Darwinian evolution, the mechanistic explanation for life so favoured by the majority of scientists. Read the rest of this entry »

We have seen scientists in the past, like famous evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, who declared that “science” and “ethics” including religion, were separate issues, each with their own spheres of influence. The implication was that everyone should be free to support the philosophy of one’s choice. Well that was then, and this is now. Today, with ethical issues as with everything else, it seems there is only one respectable position, that of the secular scientist. To support any other views is to fight “all of science.” Read the rest of this entry »