May 17, 2008 | David F. Coppedge

Will Hardcore Scientism Warm Up to Artificial Religion?

Live Science reported on a series of papers presented in Washington on the subject of science and religion.  One might have expected warfare from the title, “God and Science Collide in Nation’s Capital”; indeed, Robin Lloyd portrayed the usual take-no-prisoners attitude of some scientists: “Scientists hate God.  Or find God very disturbing.  In fact, modern science has found no evidence of God and so it’s stupid anymore to think God exists.”  But then she re-opened the forum with, “The above statements are often presented as conventional wisdom, but are they true?”
    A booklet was prepared with 13 short essays, sponsored by the Skeptics Society (Michael Shermer) and the John Templeton Foundation.  They included essays by William D. Phillips, Michael Novak, Ken Miller, Mary Midgley and Stuart Kauffman.  The points of view varied from atheist to Muslim to Methodist.
    Judging from Lloyd’s report, it appears the group leaned heavily against religion.  The following line was presented as the “standard scientific line” – “Science has failed to find natural evidence of God.  Natural evidence is all there is.  No God.  Case closed.”  Only slightly softer is the view that science has eliminated the need for God, or that God is a “failed hypothesis.”
    Some of the essayists pointed out that science does not have all the answers.  Some argued that science and religion are not necessarily at odds.  And Stuart Kauffman seemed to want to soften the pointlessness of an evolutionary universe:

Kauffman, director of the Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics at the University of Calgary, takes a slightly New Age tack, saying we must “heal” the schism between science and religion by “reinventing the sacred” and evolving from a supernatural God to a “new sense of a fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe.”

With adamant anti-creationists like Michael Shermer and Ken Miller in the forefront, both of whom have fought both creationism and intelligent design for years (while allowing for the possibility of a remote Deity), it is unlikely anyone at the symposium would have had much ear for the likes of a Ken Ham, to say nothing of a Phillip Johnson.

Foolishness.  This is like a bunch of leopards pretending to be sensitive to their prey, and saying maybe the prey would like them better if they washed off some of their spots or maybe didn’t growl so hard before pouncing.  “After all, we’re not the only predators in the jungle,” they say to one another.  “Just the coolest, sleekest and best!”
    Whom does Live Science and Michael Shermer think they are kidding?  Live Science never ceases to twist facts to ridicule any idea of God while pushing Darwin inches into miles of storytelling.  This party was of Darwin-worshipers, by Darwin-worshipers, and for Darwin-worshipers.  True worship requires two things this crowd doesn’t have: spirit and truth.
    Sorry, no deal.  God does not share the stage with idols.  All idols must go.  That includes Darwin and scientism.  Only when they stop telling God what to do, and telling Him what He must act like, and start listening to Him in humility, will they begin to stop committing idolatry.  “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me,” the eternal Creator said.  The Creator makes the rules.  The Creator defines reality.  The Creator is the Truth.  All else is lies and idolatry, and there is no compromise.
    We don’t need Kauffman’s Neanderthal Dance around the Naturalistic Campfire to drum up some phony sense of the sacred.  We need the Lofty One who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy.  One does not get sacredness (holiness) while worshiping one’s own reason and inventing one’s own philosophy.  One gets there by dropping all one’s baggage and humbling oneself before the Creator, who declares, “I am.”
    The question to be asking is not “How can we scientists, who already know it all, be nicer to stupid people of faith,” but “Is there a Creator?” and “Who is He?”  For those questions, ample empirical evidence is available to the true scientist (seeker of knowledge) and philosopher (lover of wisdom).

(Visited 7 times, 1 visits today)
Categories: Bible and Theology

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.