Where science is concerned, responsible Christians are caught in the vice grip of two extremes. On the one hand, there is the defiant and willful ignorance of persons like Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga.), who famously declared during last fall's election cycle that "evolution and the big bang theory are lies straight from the pit of hell." And on the other hand, there is the cool atheism of someone like Richard Dawkins, contentedly dismissing the whole of religious experience as the magical thinking of the great superstitious mass of humankind.
Christians must provide effective witness against both extremes. But before Christianity can engage atheism it must first address the scientific illiteracy in its own house. For the greatest danger Christianity confronts at the present moment is not incipient persecution, but increasing marginalization and irrelevance. If Christians cannot engage reasonably and responsibly with science, there will be no place for them in the public life of advanced societies.
I recently had my attention called to the work of Ken Ham. I must confess that I had not heard of him, but I soon learned that he is a figure of some influence in fundamentalist circles. He was born in Australia, where he took an undergraduate degree in environmental biology. He has since immigrated to the United States, settling in Cincinnati.
He expounds a doctrine known as "young earth creationism," which promotes the view that the first chapters of Genesis must be seen as scientifically valid. The Earth was created just 6,000 years ago. Dinosaurs and human beings walked together in those early days.
"The Bible,' Ham declares, "clearly teaches that God created [Earth] in six literal, 24-hour days a few thousand years ago" (Ken Ham, "The New Answers Book, No. 1," p. 26). He then twists and turns all of the tools and findings of modern science to support this thesis. Radiocarbon dating is unreliable, Ham asserts. When "a scientist's interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible" (p. 78). What about the "ice ages"? We need to be vigilant against those "secular/uniformitarian scientists" who understand glacial periods in terms of hundreds of thousands or millions of years (pp. 212-213).
Creation scientists, however, know better. At best, there was only one ice age, directly after Noah's Flood, and it lasted for only a few hundred years (p. 214). There never was a big bang (p. 245), and the speed of light is variable, meaning that accurate dating of the universe is impossible (p. 247).
It is easy to dismiss this stuff, but there is real danger in treating it lightly. In the secular imagination, this fantasy view of the world is fast becoming the public face of Christianity. Certainly, Ken Ham is a respected figure in his own community. He recently received an honorary degree from Liberty University. His website promotes a mix of pseudo-science and survivalism. (Check out the blog entry, "Noah the Super Prepper," May 16, 2013, AnswersinGenesis.org, for a cheerful mix of both strains of thought.) In 2007, he opened the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky, just outside of Cincinnati. In its first three years of operation, the Museum received more than 1 million visitors. Even though attendance has recently declined, more than a quarter-million annually still visit it.
Christians have not always been such enemies of science. Aside from the occasional embarrassment, such as the persecution of Galileo, science often thrived in explicitly Christian settings. In early Christianity, there was the Bishop Synesius (373- ca. 414). In his student days, Synesius, with his pagan instructor, the woman philosopher Hypatia, he explored the deep mathematical structure of the universe.
Then there is Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543). A brilliant man and a Catholic monk, Copernicus held important positions in both secular and ecclesiastical government, all the while writing voluminously. A sophisticated economic thinker, Copernicus was the first to propose that increases in the money supply have a tendency to drive price inflation. But what he is remembered for today is his heliocentric theory of the solar system. Through patient observation and calculation, Copernicus displaced the earth from the center of things, reorienting the way we view everything and thereby ushering in the modern world.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) was an Augustinian monk and professor of natural philosophy and eventually became the abbot of his monastery. And today he is recalled for his path-breaking studies of pea plants which showed the existence of recessive and dominant genes, an essential cornerstone of modern genetics.
But of them all, my own favorite is the unjustly obscure Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), the "father of the big bang." A Belgian priest, Fr. Lemaitre did his graduate work in theoretical physics at Cambridge University and Harvard. In 1927, while still a junior lecturer at the Catholic University of Louvain, he proposed an expansionary theory of the universe at odds with the then-prevailing belief that the universe had always existed in a steady state. Four years later, in 1931, he asserted that the entire universe began with what he called a "cosmic egg" or "primeval atom" -- a theory that Sir Fred Hoyle derisively dismissed as "the big bang." Later that same year, Fr. Lemaitre argued that not only was the universe expanding, its expansion was accelerating in speed. While it has taken decades, Lemaitre's theories have been confirmed in every major particular.
This is the heritage that Christians must reclaim and reassert. Science and religion are not opposites. Faith and reason can be reconciled in truth. And Christians, furthermore, must police their ranks. When someone like Congressman Broun -- who sits on the House Committee on Science and Technology -- denounces scientific knowledge in the name of misguided fundamentalism, Christians should be the first to call him out.
Cross-posted at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-j-reid-jr/christians-must-confront-scientific-illiteracy_b_3307516.html
Welcome to RLL, Sean.
Michael
Posted by: Michael Perry | 05/23/2013 at 05:39 PM
Jimbino;
“Look it up.” Where? I’ve been “looking up science” for literally half a century; nowhere is agnosticism required. You’re going to need to cite a source.
“The vast majority of acclaimed scientists are indeed atheists”. Perhaps true. The vast majority of plumbers (in America) might Christians, that would not mean Christianity is necessary for plumbing. That most scientists have a particular belief does not mean the belief is required. The vast majority probably have two hands; that does not mean that one-handed persons cannot be scientists!
Jack Kevorkian (the correct spelling) was a guy with a belief. It was not a “scientific” belief.
sean s.
Posted by: sean samis | 05/23/2013 at 12:25 PM
Wrong, Sean S.
Science is much more than a method. It requires skepticism, reason and agnosticism (look it up), though not necessarily atheism, once proof of the existence of god were evident.
The vast majority of acclaimed scientists are indeed atheists--persons who do not believe in the power of prayer or, indeed, in an immanent god.
Yes, persecution of Jack Kervorkian was anti-science in that it involved persecution of reason by a religious country that believes in a soul, spirit, etc, conceits not yet accepted by science.
Posted by: Jimbino | 05/23/2013 at 11:40 AM
Regarding “Now as then, religious folk persecute scientists and fight to impede scientific progress, whether in artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, cloning or assisted suicide.”
Assisted suicide? That is not an example of scientific progress regardless of whether one supports it or not. Prosecution of Jack Kevorkian was not “anti-science”.
Science is a method, a way of learning about nature, it requires skepticism and reason, but does not require agnosticism or atheism.
sean s.
Posted by: sean samis | 05/23/2013 at 09:03 AM
Science involves more than "scientific knowledge" or "endeavors." It is more involved with "thinking like a scientist," which implies rational rejection of unfounded dogma of any kind in the search for truth. Every scientist is at first a skeptic and an agnostic; what convinces him is evidence, not councils of Nicea or papal proclamations.
Giordano rightly challenged various church dogmas, including the trinity, virgin birth and transubstantiation. He was more scientist than Martin Luther ever was, and he paid a steep price for his rationality.
Indeed, we're still waiting for the first scintilla of scientific evidence of transubstantiation! Or of the efficacy of prayer or exorcism.
The Protestant Reformation had a lot to do with saving Science from persecution by the Roman Church; but for the Reformation, we'd might still have burning of scientists at the stake. Even now, pioneers like Sarah Weddingon and Jack Kervorkian are vilified and persecuted by the unscientific religious.
Posted by: Jimbino | 05/22/2013 at 02:27 PM
"One of those "occasional embarrassment(s)" was the persecution and burning at the stake of astronomer Giordano Bruno."
Embarrassing perhaps because of the unfortunate practice of burning heretics from Christianity. His scientific knowledge and endeavors had nothing to do with it.
The Catholic Church, and indeed, most of the Christian churches, have been friends to science. Galileo was the possible exception, and even then, his actions in deliberately irritating the ruling nobles likely had much to do with it. Galileo was an exception in a long history of Christian support of science, including in the ranks such notables as: John Philoponus, Copernicus, Kepler, Polkinghorne, Roger Bacon, Lemaitre, ad etc.
Posted by: Jonathan | 05/22/2013 at 10:53 AM
One of those "occasional embarrassment(s)" was the persecution and burning at the stake of astronomer Giordano Bruno.
Scientific progress has meant the gradual and bloody abandonment of all religious notions of astronomy, mind-body, health, etc.
Now as then, religious folk persecute scientists and fight to impede scientific progress, whether in artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, cloning or assisted suicide.
Science and Faith cannot be reconciled as long as "...faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Posted by: Jimbino | 05/22/2013 at 07:37 AM
It is impossible to take seriously any interest of Christians in science. If they were to take science seriously, they might try a controlled experiment to show us that prayer EVER works in any objective sense.
If they need any help in understanding concepts like the null hypothesis, experimental controls, statistical analysis or peer review, I'd be happy to help.
Once we finish that experiment, we can move on to examine talking snakes and donkeys, burning bushes, arrested rotation of the earth, immaculate conceptions, bodily assumptions, witches, angels, ghosts, turning water to wine and parting of the Red Sea.
Posted by: Jimbino | 05/22/2013 at 07:16 AM
This is characteristically terrific, Charles (post) and Patrick (comment) - thanks so much for posting.
All best,
Bob
Posted by: Bob Hockett | 05/21/2013 at 04:52 PM
Here is a bibliography in the interest of scientific literacy: http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/2009/08/science-technology-basic-bibliography.html
And here is a list I posted not long ago at RLL on "science and religion:" http://www.religiousleftlaw.com/2011/12/science-religion-a-select-bibliography.html
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | 05/21/2013 at 04:07 PM