Embedded Files
How did we get to such a social divide ?
To unravel our tangled social consciousness we need to review our past. Darwin's Theory of Evolution did not appear until the middle of the Nineteenth Century. However, Copernicus initiated what is called the Copernican Revolution three hundred years earlier. Evolution and the Copernican Revolution have been woven together to create a significant portion of the current worldview. Nathan Myhrvold wrote an article for Slate that typifies our cultural mindset. “Mars to Humanity: Get Over Yourself - So you're a human being. Well, isn't that special?”. The following excerpts present key elements of his premise that there is a Christianity Conspiracy against science.
Ptolemy (second century) was the first and boldest in a long succession of spin doctors for the primacy of human beings. The whole, universe he postulated, rotated around us, with the Earth sitting at the center of heaven itself. Any marketing consultant will tell you that positioning is everything, and center-of-the- universe is hard to beat . . . A Polish astronomer named Copernicus (1473-1543) rudely pointed out: Sorry Earthlings, we spin around the sun, not vice versa. . . . Galileo's crime was to undermine the uniqueness of our planet, and by doing so, to threaten the intellectual security of the religious dictatorship of his time. People get cranky when you burst their bubble. Over time, advances in astronomy have relentlessly reinforced the utter insignificance of Earth on a celestial scale. Mankind is not special by virtue of our address in the universe, or what spins around us, or because life originated here. Slowly, but surely, we've been compelled to renounce the comfort of these beliefs. Our true distinction is the intellectual journey that brought us to this understanding. (Nathan Myhrvold, Slate; August 15,1996)
The last paragraph of the article is a summary of his view of man. Myhrvold doesn't disbelieve that “mankind” is special. As an executive at Microsoft, he was quite sure that he himself is special. Myhrvold, former Chief Technology Officer at Microsoft, has moved on to found his own company. To this modern intellectual mankind is not special because God created us in His image or because He fashioned a special place (Earth) for us. To Myhrvold mankind is special because of our intellect. However, the intellect that he is praising must think the special "Enlightened” way. Pride in our intellectual achievements and our technology are our new idols. Myhrvold however is not alone in voicing this view of the universe. It has become fashionable to prove how intellectually mature we are by stating that we are but a microscopic dot on a tiny dirtball in a backwater galaxy.
It's what we have been taught. There are millions of galaxies that are littered with billions of stars. Carl Sagan popularized the concept with his “Billions and Billions” of stars mantra. Given such a staggering array of stars, each of which could have its own planetary system, Earth cannot possibly be unique or special. Star Trek episodes and years of movies from the Star Wars “Empire” assure us that thousands of intelligent species roam the galaxies. The fact they haven't contacted us is yet another sign of their superior intelligence. Is Myhrvold's characterization accurate? Materialistic Principles have become a cultural drumbeat that is based on the following concepts:
1. Christianity is anti-science - ex. – Galileo and Scope’s Trial
2. Humanity is Not special – because Earth is not at the center of the universe
3. Principle of Mediocrity - Billions and billions of stars embedded in a vast universe = Earth and humanity as insignificant
4. Science disproved Christianity
The Facts:
Truth is often more complicated than fiction. Ptolemy was not the first person to propose that the sun revolved around the Earth. As a mathematician working in Alexandria in the 2nd Century A.D. Ptolemy lived within the Hellenistic Culture protected by the Pax Romana. He had inherited all the observations of the Greeks as well as a fully codified worldview covering astronomy, physics, mathematics and medicine. During the Golden Age of Philosophy, the Greeks devised a worldview that held sway over most of the Western world for nearly two thousand years. The Greeks saw their world as composed of four elementals (i.e., earth, air, fire and water). These four fundamental components, in differing amounts, composed the visible world below the Heavens. The Heavens as the realm of perfection was composed of a different element, called quintessence.
A simple experiment capsulizes their view of the elements. If a mixture of earth, water and air were combined in a clear bottle, agitated and then allowed to stand all the elements would seek their own place. The earth sank to the bottom, the water covered the earth and the air rose above the other elements. The sub luminary region (i.e., below heaven) was in constant flux as the elements strove to reach their own natural level. Earth wasn't so much at the center of the universe, as at the bottom. The Greeks saw the stars as jewels set on the inner surface of a giant sphere. The sky was supported on an axis that went through Earth; the sky rotated on spherical shells. This solution was adopted by Aristotle (384- 322 B.C.) who employed 55 different shells to accommodate all the known celestial components. Since the Greeks had no telescopes they relied on naked eye observations. Yet even this no tech approach was sufficient to create problems. The sun and the moon did not move in a uniform manner. In addition, the planets or “wanderers,” as they were known, occasionally moved in retrograde or backward before returning to their normal eastward progress.
According to Aristotle a Prime Mover functioned in the outer celestial rim to initiate and power the system. The friction of the shells sliding against each other caused the stars to flicker and burn. The interior planets were set in motion by the rubbing of the shells or spheres against each other. The figure below, doesn’t give a full depiction of 55 different shells however it should help to re-orient our thinking. The Greek mindset was more like the nested Maruska dolls with layers nested within layers.
Greek View of the Universe
At approximately the same time Aristotle was fine-tuning his view of the heavens another philosopher, Aristarchus postulated a sun-centered universe. His theory however was rejected as flawed. If the Earth were revolving around the sun the Greeks were sure they would feel the motion. They reasoned that if the Earth were a moving object they would be buffeted by a constantly blowing wind. Additionally, their concept of gravity held that everything was drawn toward the center of the universe. Apples fell from trees and were drawn down, toward the center of the Earth. As the heavy Element - Earth drew everything towards it. If the sun were the center of the universe then things would move toward the Sun, which of course was foolishness. People would be pulled off of Earth and drawn into the sun. Ptolemy, as a mathematician knew that a much simpler solution was available if the Earth was allowed to move. However much as in the time of Aristarchus, 500 years earlier, common sense and a fully developed Aristotelian physics stood in the way. If Ptolemy picked up a rock he would feel it tug downward, attempting to reach its natural position at the geometric center of the universe. If he watched a fire it strove to reach its natural place at the fringe of the heavens. Each time he tossed a rock into the air - it fell at his feet. If the Earth were moving, the rock would fall several feet to his right or left.
The Earth served as the bedrock and kept mankind securely grounded both literally and figuratively. Without telescopes, Newton's physics or pictures from outer space Aristotle's worldview and physics presented a very powerful logic. Aristotle's view of the universe extended beyond Earth. He declared the circle, because of its lack of beginning or end, as the perfect shape. Since the heavens were the realm of perfection celestial bodies must move in perfect circles. To this end, Ptolemy devised a mathematical system, which predicted the observed motion of each of the heavenly bodies using only circles. Ptolemy must` have been an extremely talented mathematician because observations since the time of Aristotle had shown more irregularities in the “wanderers”.
To compensate for these irregularities Ptolemy devised an elaborate system of constructs (i.e., The Eccentric, epicycles and the Equant). The Eccentric allowed Earth to be displaced slightly, Ptolemy's fudge factor. The epicycle was the geometric equivalent of a movable eccentric. The epicycles were used primarily with the planets Mars and Venus. The planet would move in a small circle (epicycle) at the circumference of its orbit and then resume it's normal cycle. The epicycle was useful for accounting for the apparent backward motion of the planets. The Equant was the most radical construct as it allowed for a non-circular motion within the heavens. The end product was a very cumbersome system but it did provide accurate predictions. Ptolemy did not retain Earth at the “bottom” of the universe because of some egotistical desire to place mankind at the “center” of the universe as portrayed by Myhrvold. Ptolemy's worldview- what he had been taught and what his eyes and senses told him compelled him to find a mathematical solution to support the “fact” that Earth was the anchor of the universe. Even after the fall of Rome the European Monastic System and the Arabian Universities preserved and spread the Logic of Aristotle, the Geometry of Archimedes, the Medicine of Galen and the Astronomy of Ptolemy. The Copernican Attempt:
It was not until 1514, 1700 years after Aristarchus first proposes the heliocentric system, that Copernicus dared to question the Aristotelian system. He proposed the following revolutionary concepts in his book On the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbs.
1. The Earth moves
2. The Earth revolves on its axis - which accounts for the daily motion of the stars
3. The cycle of the year is the result of the Earth's annual trip around the sun.
4. The apparent retrograde motion of some of the planets is the result of the Earth moving
5. The sun is the center of our universe
To soften the blow of a theory that literally flew in the face of commonsense Copernicus' publisher added a preface stating that the text was a mathematical hypothesis. Since the first eleven chapters were a mathematical treatise providing a method of computing and predicting celestial orbits it caused little controversy. Copernicus had written the most sophisticated and complete mathematical treatise since Ptolemy and it was widely admired. Many astronomers used Copernicus' constructs with a geocentric model. However his heliocentric hypothesis was rejected out of hand. All educated people had been thoroughly schooled in the Aristotelian view. Earth, as the heaviest element drew everything to it. Gravitas - heaviness held you rooted to the planet. Any theory that proposed a sun-centered universe was utterly foolish as it would send you flying off into space. However for all his ingenuity and daring Copernicus’ heliocentric model failed. It did not account for all of the anomalies in the planetary movement. Copernicus could not completely break away from the Aristotelian system. He tried to design an essentially Aristotelian universe using a moving Earth. He used circles in all his orbital pathways.
The Astronomer’s Dilemma:
It is difficult for us, with our familiarity with the Earth as a planet moving through a Solar System within a galaxy, to comprehend the changes that were being suggested. Aristotle's universe had a finite boundary. Aristotle resisted the possibility of a void - a space that was not occupied. Infinite space has no center: every point is equally distant from all points on the periphery. And, if there is no center, there is no preferred point at which the heavy element, Earth, can aggregate, nor is there an intrinsic “Up” or “Down” to determine the natural motion of an element returning to its proper place. In fact that is no “natural place” in an infinite universe, for each place is like every other. (Copernican Revolution p.78-79)
The centrality of a stable Earth was a fundamental element of Aristotle's closely-knit and coherent worldview. If the stars no longer moved on the underside of a rotating sphere; the universe was no longer a contained finite space. Space could now contain a void filled with an infinite number of stars, planets and moons. Copernicus could not give up the Aristotelian principle of the heavens (our outer space) as a place of perfection and the use of the perfect circle for all orbiting bodies in the heavens. It was not until Johanes Kepler (1571-1630) devised a system to transform direction as seen from the Earth to corresponding places in its orbit around the sun that a solution was possible. After experimenting for years with epicenters, a holdover from the Ptolemaic system, he decided that the only possible explanation for the movement of Mars and the other planets was an elliptical orbit. Which finally produced a workable solution to the visual evidence that had confounded astronomers for a thousand years.
Myhrvold wrote as if there were some vast conspiracy that controlled the mind of mankind. Copernicus and Kepler were each focused on a mathematical problem. They saw inelegance. Aristotle and Ptolemy were separated by hundreds of years. Copernicus lived a thousand years after Ptolemy and connecting the dots via hindsight is tenuous at best. To use the work of mathematicians and astronomers to create a fictitious philosophy where none existed is to write your own history.
Galileo’s Grand Moment:
Many trace the fracturing of society back to Galileo and Copernicus (or at least the creation of a rift between theology and science). Since the Catholic Church made Galileo recant his theory of a sun-centered solar system as a heresy many scientists and philosophers repeat this episode as grounds for their total distrust of all things religious. Before we condemn the Pope and the Catholic Church with the clarity of five hundred years of hindsight, it would be better to provide some historical perspective. Galileo (1564-1642) a contemporary of Kepler was a victim of his own hubris. He was a gifted mathematician, physicist and astronomer. He entered the University at Pisa to study medicine. However, as the story goes, he observed the motion of a swinging lamp and noted that it always required the same amount of time to complete an oscillation. A geometry lesson he overheard awakened his interest in mathematics and science.
His essay describing the hydrostatic balance made his name as an inventor. It also paved the way for him to be awarded the position of lecturer in mathematics at the University of Pisa. In Venice in 1609, Galileo learned of the invention of the telescope. Upon his return to Padua he built his own telescope and using his mechanical skills he quickly improved it. By checking the curvature of the lenses he was the first to use the telescope for accurate astronomical observation. He observed that the moon was not a place of perfection, since it was covered with “canals” and craters. He discovered the moons of Saturn, the phases of Venus, a vast number of stars in the Milky Way and spots on our sun.
In 1611, he went to Rome and demonstrated the telescope to eminent personages at the papal court. Given a favorable response he ventured to write Letters on the Sunspots. The movement of spots across the face of the sun, according to Galileo proved that Copernicus was right. In addition to his skill as a mathematician and inventor Galileo had an apparent gift for writing. His wrote his letter on sunspots in Italian so that it became popular and widely circulated beyond the university. The academic community, Aristotelian professors one and all, banded together against this threat. Using the most powerful resource available they denounced him to the Inquisition for blasphemies which they invented.
Quoting patristic sources (i.e., the fathers of the Christian Church) Galileo warned that it would be “a terrible detriment for their souls if people found themselves convinced by proof of something that it was made then a sin to believe.” Galileo went to Rome to beg the authorities to leave the way open for a change. A number of ecclesiastical experts were on his side. Unfortunately Cardinal Bellarmine, the chief theologian of the Church held to the long honored position that “mathematical hypotheses” had nothing to do with physical reality. He saw this new theory, as causing a scandal that would aid the Protestants. Determined to nip this before it spread he declared Copernicanism “false and erroneous” and had the book (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbs) banned in March of 1616. However as a personal consideration to Galileo, Cardinal Bellarmine granted him a personal audience in February of 1616 to inform him of the forthcoming decree. Galileo was instructed that he could neither “hold nor defend” the Copernican Principle, although he could still discuss it as a “mathematical supposition.”
Taking this information most seriously Galileo retired to his house near Florence for the next seven years. In 1624, he again traveled to Rome seeking a revocation of the earlier decree. Failing in that he received permission from the pope to write about the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems as long as he discussed them as mathematical constructs. The book would be licensed as long as Galileo reached the conclusion that “we cannot presume to know how the world is really made because God could have brought about the same effects in ways unimagined by us, and we must not restrict His omnipotence.” (Enc. p. 1089)
Galileo's Dialogue of the Two Chief World Systems was published in 1632 with the full imprimatur of the censors and became widely read and applauded as a literary and philosophical masterpiece. Galileo had been friends with Maffeo Barberini before his election to pope, Urban VIII. However when it was pointed out to the pope that despite its noncommittal title the text was a strong plea for the Copernican system Urban VIII felt a deep betrayal. The pope felt that Galileo had made him the "Simplicio" the Aristotelian who was humiliated for 400 pages. What the Pope felt was a caricature called for prosecution.
The commissary general of the Inquisition - found no great guilt and proposed that Galileo be let off with a reprimand. The full commission however ruled that he was guilty and must be sentenced. On June 21, he was declared guilty of having “held and taught” the Copernican system and was ordered to recant. Galileo recited the formula that he “abjured, cursed and detested” his past errors. Although it is reported that as he left the room he muttered “but the Earth still moves.” He was sentenced to house arrest in his villa in Florence. He kept his pension and he continued to teach and communicate through letters and publications for the remaining eight years of his life. Each of these men worked within their own mindset and social consciousness. Aristotle did not think of himself as an Ancient Philosopher. Copernicus and later Galileo did not ponder “Medieval or Renaissance thoughts.” Labels are useful for describing a general or overall characteristic, but they frequently obliterate the nuances that are people. History should be a dispassionate review of past events. However in the hands of someone who is seeking to “make” a point history can undergo significant “rewriting or retelling.”
In Myhrvold's retelling of the development of science the subtext is that religion is against reason. Religion is the opposite of truth. Copernicus' Revolution is portrayed as removing Earth and thus mankind from its special place in the universe. The Bible clearly states that mankind was made in the image of God. Mankind is thus special. The universe was created by God and specifically designed for man as His final creation. The insignificance of the planet Earth is a consistent and repeated theme of many naturalist philosophers. In the materialistic view there is only a material world - lots and lots of it and we are merely a small speck on a minuscule planet in a backwater solar system of a gigantic universe. All of which evolved by chance out of cosmic chaos. Now a not so random thought that will shock many people. Science is built on a solid Judeo-Christian foundation. Most history and all science books have been rewritten to obscure if not obliterate the Christian alliance with science.
The Judeo-Christian Worldview provides fundamental presumptions of the scientific method. Science as a systematic investigation did not emerge until the 1600’s in Europe. Most of the founders of modern science were Christians (e.g., Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Pascal and Boyle). Contrary to what is espoused by the materialistic worldview the basic presumptions of modern research (i.e., testability, experimentation and falsification) are rooted in the Judeo-Christian worldview. These deeply religious men sought to know the mind of God. Since mankind is made in the image of God we are able to think in a finite way like God. God made a world and a universe that is logical, systematic and knowable. Many of the Founding Fathers of Science were Christians.
Galileo - Astronomy
Tycho Brahe – Astronomy
Sir Francis Bacon- Inductive Method
Johan Kepler - Planetary Motion
Descartes - Empiricism
Sir Isaac Newton- Mathematician, Physicist- Laws of Gravity and Motion
Blaise Pascal - Physics and Math
Robert Boyle - Chemistry
Quotes: from these men of Faith
Descartes – “I know that God is the author of all things.”
Newton - “God created everything by number, weight and measure.”
Bacon - “God has two textbooks - scripture and creation – We would do well to listen to both. ‘’
Louis Pasteur - "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator."
Robert Boyle - "When with bold telescopes I survey the old and newly discovered stars and planets;. . . and by the light of chemical furnaces I study the book of nature I find myself often times reduced; to exclaim with the psalmist, how manifold are thy works O Lord! in wisdom has Thou made all! "
Belief in a Creator did not diminish these scientists' diligence in studying nature. According to the Bible we are to seek to know God's works and to seek Him through His Creation. Neither does this desire to know God distort nor require a Special Christian Science. God is Truth. I would challenge everyone to seek their Creator through the pursuit of Truth. Which brings us to the next point.
Our culture is heavily indoctrinated with the wonders of science and the scientific method. Our children study science in kindergarten. Given this pervasiveness we tend to assume that the study of science occurs naturally. Other cultures and ancient civilizations reached high levels of achievement however they did not develop active science programs. After analyzing many of these civilizations Dr. Stanley Jaki wrote that their efforts to create a scientific mind set were stillborn. He lists five impediments to the development of science: a cyclical view of history, a pseudo-scientific explanation, deification of nature (animism), denial of existence, and failure to balance faith and reason.
A cyclical view of history sees the passage of time as a process that repeats itself. Many Eastern religions and philosophies believe life is fulfilled as cycles of reincarnation. Given this view of reality there is little incentive to discover anything other than the reappearance of a new cycle. Without a linear view of history there is no impetuous to seek cause and effect. In the America’s the Mayan and Aztec cultures developed advanced mathematical skills and a very accurate calendar.
The Mayans might be said to be consumed with determining the cyclical aspect of time. They developed
multiple calendars. The Haab cycle represented the solar year of 365 days. The sacred calendar, Tzolk was 260 unique days, based on cycles of the moon. The Calendar Round was made by interweaving the Tzolk and the Haab calendars. To date mythical and historical events the Maya developed what is called the Long Count Calendar. The Mayan Long Calendar measures 1,872,000 days. This cycle ended on the Winter Solstice December 21, 2012. Websites sprang up and the electronic media feasted on the Mayan Calendar “predicting” the end of the world on December 21, 2012. Since you are reading this several years after the "doomsday" event, another man-made prediction failed. The Mayan people and archaeologists who study the Mayan calendar were not drawn into the frenzy because they understood that the Long Count Calendar was just what its name said - a way of counting very long periods of time. However it does point to the fact that the Mayans expended much of their cultural and intellectual capital on the prediction of cyclical movements of the heavens. Little or no effort was made to pursue the discovery of cause and effect.
A second aspect that is an impediment to the development of the scientific method is the usage of pseudo-scientific explanations. Astronomy is a science that seeks information about celestial objects. Astrology sees the stars as a means of determining man’s fate by knowing the “sign” he is born under or plotting the convergence of astrological signs. There is no experimentation necessary when life is determined by the alignment of the stars. The Babylonians, conquered much of the Middle East, built vast cities and the fabled Hanging Gardens of Babylon. However they mixed their astronomy with astrology. Battles were fought or delayed based on the results of the alignment of the stars. The divination of animal entrails determined when to plant or where to build a city.
The third impediment to the development of science is the deification of nature. In its most elemental form this is “animism”. Primitive cultures believe that elements such as rocks, the wind, and the sea are alive and controlled by spirits that must be placated. The Egyptians were able to build temples and pyramids and dominate much of the Middle East for centuries but they never studied the physical world they worshiped. The Crocodile god, Sobek was the god of fertility and his sweat was believed to create the Nile river. Egyptians offered sacrifices to Hapi to ensure that the Nile flooded their land and nourished the soil. Much of their religious worship was focused on placating the elements of nature and the gods and goddesses.
The deification of nature is also evidenced in pantheism ( i.e., all is god). God is seen in everything. The inability to separate nature and mankind or the separation of an objective reality would limit any effort to study nature or the universe. Mother Nature would simply be worshiped. The Druids were an ancient group who worshiped nature. Pantheism has had a contemporary rebirth in the casual manner in which many people refer to Mother Nature as a universal descriptor of reality. Some have even written that Pantheism, using the definition that God is ALL, is a larger umbrella for Buddhism, Hinduism and New Age Concepts. The radical ecology movement aggressively pursues the concept that Mother Earth is sacred. Mankind is a blight that should be reduced if not eliminated. The New Age mantra chants that there are no gods, no devils, no heaven, no hell only the wonderful universe. Which sounds more like materialism. The Hindu religion recognizes One Supreme God and thousands of gods and goddesses.
The fourth impediment to the development of science is the denial of orderliness or the existence of the universe. While it may sound illogical to deny the existence of the physical world the Hindu religion does. India’s culture had the knowledge of Arabic mathematics but their religious and philosophical roots insisted that the world was an illusion. One would not study that which is not real. In the Hindu religion the physical or material world is an illusion called Maya. Personality, thinking and feeling cause suffering. Karma holds you bound. People gain salvation by recognizing and rejecting Maya. It may take many lifetimes (reincarnation) to achieve release.
While most Americans do not know a great deal about the Hindu religion much of Western thought is based on the philosophical writings of the Greeks. The Greeks reached a high level of civilization and yet they did not develop the scientific method. They believed in idealism. Plato’s allegory of the cave is an example. In the allegory the people in the cave saw only the flickering reflection of shadows cast on the walls. Plato taught that we live in a world that is but a shadow of the Forms. The “Ideals” exist on another level in a state of perfection. Aristotle, Plato’s pupil, believed that motion was “of” the object therefore a heavy object would fall faster than a lighter object. However no one went to the top of a tall building and dropped two rocks of different weight. The Greek philosophy did not require experimentation and so their “science” was stillborn. Either worldview, is a denial of “reality” and undercuts any effort to study nature and determine experimental validity.
The fifth impediment, the lack of a balance between faith and reason, is firmly rooted in a modern perspective. It calls for the incompatibility of faith and science. This impediment is perhaps best understood as the worldview expressed by humanists. Carl Sagan spoke of viewing mankind’s history as a progression from cave man to space man. Primitive man (cave man) was filled with superstition and little knowledge. Therefore he was fearful of lightning and attributed rain to the gods. Cave man sought to placate the gods and elements he could not understand. Years pass and mankind advances to the next stage; what Sagan called the God/man stage. At this level mankind has some understanding of science and “created” God in man’s image and institutional religions. Sagan saw the evolution of mankind fulfilled in the Spaceman who throws off the shackles of faith and totally commits to the true light of science. It must be reinforced that the “science” Dr. Sagan is touting is a very specific view. Methodological naturalism which limits the explanation of reality to empirical data.
This formula is currently presented in most history and science books as the progressive view of mankind. Fulfilling the evolutionary myth we are no longer the poor animals who clawed our way up from primordial ooze. We, mankind write the code for evolution. In our arrogance we now believe there is nothing we cannot defeat. To deny this progression is to be labeled as a member of the radical far right who is anti-science, believes in a flat earth and even God. In the battle for social consciousness it is frequently expressed that anyone who has religious faith is thereby incapable of conducting scientific study or work. Having faith in God as the Creator does NOT mean a person becomes incapable of discernment. Dr. Behe wrote. "If my graduate student came into my office and said that the angel of death killed her bacterial culture, I would be disinclined to believe her. The Journal of Biological Chemistry is unlikely to start a new section on the spiritual regulation of enzyme activity. (Darwin's Black Box p. 241)
God’s Character is Foundational to the Scientific Method
1. Mankind is Created in God’s Image
2. The universe is designed for us to know and experience
3. The Bible directs God’s people to seek His face and know the glory of His creation.
4. The physical world is a reality - Sensory data is reliable. God is not a trickster
5. God designed us with curiosity
The Christian founders of modern science believed that the heavens declared the glory of God. Christians are told to look to nature to see God’s creation and that God’s handiwork is discoverable. Since mankind is made in His image we can discern His mind through the glory of His Creation. Christianity presupposes that there is a real world; that it is comprehensible; that sense data is reliable; that nature is orderly and uniform, and the validity of mathematics and logic. Given a finite universe that is God’s creation - God Himself invited us to explore His creation - an orderly logical and knowable universe. There is no Special Christian Science. Nor is God a trickster. The sun rose in the East today and it will tomorrow. Experiments that were run on Tuesday can be repeated on Wednesday and the results will be the same. If, we conducted the experiment correctly and controlled all the variables. Because we were created in God’s image we can discern His fingerprints. We were designed to be curious and that curiosity is rewarded.
At issue is not science but a worldview. Remember the different cultures that were reviewed? Each cultural mindset guided that civilization to value specific achievements and allocate their resources accordingly. Christianity and materialism are currently vying for the cultural soul of America and the eternal soul of all humanity. Materialism espouses the view of man as an animal. Remember the sarcasm in Myhrvold's article titled "So you're a human being. Well isn't that special?" Materialism undergirds itself with the Theory of Evolution. Having claimed that "it" speaks for science and is the arbiter of Truth- materialism has sought to replace absolute morality with man-made rules based on the sliding scale of relativism. The contrast between the two worldviews is stark:
Materialism Christianity
Man is an evolved animal Mankind is a Special Creation of God
Survival of the Fittest - (Winner takes All) Absolute Morality - 10 Commandments
Grab for all the Gusto- Altruism - Love thy neighbor
No eternal consequences Eternal judgment & consequences
Man is a soulless beast Mankind is a Child of God -endowed with an eternal soul
The battle for mankind is one of eternal consequences. However it is not one in which you are weaponless. God as the Creator of all things both great and small did not initiate a universe nor anything in nature that does not bear His fingerprints. Materialists and Darwinian evolution are guilty of misrepresentation, misinterpretation, and fudging the data. Just as God breathed life and a soul into His children He also granted us the gift of choice. Let us choose to seek Him in all things.
Google Sites
Report abuse