"Christianity - Is it Opposed to Science?" Part III

Part Three

Christianity Opposes Science

In Part One it was pointed out that the notion of the Church opposing science was not a legitimate assumption.  Further it was seen that a survey of the greatest scientists and scientific discoveries would support the notion that it was the Reformation not the Renaissance that saw the great uptick in scientific discoveries.

Part Two answered some of the specific inaccuracies that Christianity supposedly cites against Science.  Again many of the arguments tendered by Christianity’s opponents are less that valid.  Not the least of which is the false notion that conservation Bible believing Christians oppose the legitimate sciences. 

In the course of those discussions there still remained several matters to discuss.  Among them are the following.

Scientific Theory

It would then appear that in order to seek to gain some credibility, the closed system science people have redefined scientific theory from something to be theorized and therefore studied to a more fact based definition as in the following.

Referring to science and theory, the notion is that when the two terms are used together, the suggestion is that theory “refers to a well-developed, logically consistent explanation of a phenomenon, and an explanation that is consistent with observed facts.”

However for the evolutionist the problem of reproducible validation still remains.  For example one cannot reproduce evolution, thus it is a theory and shall remain so until there are reproducible results which confirm the notion and thus move it from theory to fact.

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."  Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

(Full article available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)

Inconsistent and Unfair Accusations

On the one side is atheistic science claiming that they can without legitimate scientific data make claims for valid scientific theory all the while pointing an accusing finger at the creationist with the unfounded claim that creationism is without scientific foundation.  They postulate such to be so by claiming that creationism is a wild guess and claiming that religious myth is unsupported by science.

Yet they themselves cannot explain some of the issues discussed in the previous post (Part II) and conveniently posit the notion that science will one day be able to explain these things.  Frankly it becomes of question of where one chooses to place trust. 

Libeling the Opponent

To discredit the other side of an argument by libeling or name calling is well beneath fair and respectful debate.  Such is the behavior of the one whose arguments lack substance and foundation.  To label the Children of Israel (Jews) as “slave holding goat herders” is inaccurate, libelous, and unfair.  Such is spoken out of derision not of the careful and sound study of non-biblical archeology.

Would it not be more profitable to engage in the highest tradition of argument and debate in order to attempt to prove one’s point?  Such seems lost to those who posit their own positional superiority and thus discount the realities of genuine truth.

Incomplete Quotes

For example the citing Martin Luther’s comment in Table Talk which supposedly says, “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has.” is ripped right out of context and unfairly represents the position of the Reformer.

The context is a discussion as to whether children should be baptized.  The full quote is as follows.

“The anabaptists (sic) pretend that children, not as yet having reason, ought not to receive baptism. I answer: That reason in no way contributes to faith. Nay, in that children are destitute of reason, they are all the more fit and proper recipients of baptism. For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the Divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. If God can communicate the Holy Ghost to grown persons, he can, a fortiori, communicate it to young children. Faith comes of the Word of God, when this is heard; little children hear that Word when they receive baptism, and therewith they receive also faith.  (Table Talk CCCLIII)

Said another way, Luther is dealing with children and is not making a general statement that would be inconsistent with other sections of that same collection of his thoughts.

At no point does Luther disparage learning (cf. Table Talk DCCCV). As a matter of fact, numbers of times Table Talk contains references to the learned, medicine, astronomy, understanding, science, and people such as Aristotle.  The point is that Luther makes is that by what is later titled Rationalism and reason one cannot know of Spiritual matters. 

Either—Or

The whole argument by those who oppose Christianity is an “either-or” discussion of Christianity and Science.  The fact is that the Bible does provide a foundation for the study of all knowledge.  The problems come when one seeks to do those same studies based upon a closed system secular model. 

When one accepts an open system Divine model, to be sure all will not be discovered for the miracle of creation is that it reflects the character of the Creator.  Just as God is eternal, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, and so on, so too all that the science that is to be discovered and studied will reflect those things. 

Even secular science indirectly and without meaning to acknowledge such to be so as they observe that no matter the advances man makes it is but a small understanding of the whole of reality. 

The Ultimate Problem

There is not one example that secular science can provide of randomness leading to order. It is always, always, always away from order. It is moving toward chaos and eventually entropy.

Degrading Systems, Entropy Ahead

Genuine reality to include nature is now much different than it was at the big bang. Therefore, push it out into time far enough there will come a time that its randomness will degrade exponentially.  At such a point, man’s theorizing now stressed, will not be able to theorize enough to keep ahead of the chaos.

The Theoretical as Gospel

Besides, the Theoretical Physics and Theoretical Mathematics and all the other theoretical postulations that can be put on the table are based upon theory and theory relies heavily upon presuppositions or assumptions which are to be proven.  Now as one can read in the previous section on scientific theory such postulations are more and more being accepted as genuine reality.  So the creationist presupposes a benevolent God and the secular scientist presupposes that which is necessary for his secular science.

Degrading or Dependable

The problem is that man’s theories when they leave out the Divine suffers under the decline toward entropy.   The creationist and his science suffers under no such decline but only the privilege of a deeper look into reality, the reality of the one who said that He is the same yesterday today and forever.

Why should the rational thinking person make the choice for the random over the stable? Makes no sense.  It is as if one is standing on the edge of a cliff, and has to choose between standing on Theoretical Jell-o or a unmovable boulder—a boulder that has existed at least ten times as long as the theoretical.

Summation

Anyone can argue a point through distortion, misrepresentation, and falsehood.  The key to any honest debate is to present and defend a position based on logical argument.  To argue against a distorted position is to argue against a position that does not exist.  Doing to simply means that one argues against that which does not exist.

One can always win the argument when there is not one in the opposing chair.  That in effect is what the writer of 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity does.  That is not to say that at points he does not make legitimate criticism, however at most points he fails in his characterizations of the Christian faith.

Go ahead and argue against Christianity and the Church but do not do it by arguing against the reality not one's perceptions clouded by bias and attitude.  The reality is that the Christian Faith (Orthodox, Protestant, Roman Catholic) with all of its human weakness has done more to improve conditions of mankind in this life than any other movement, faith, or belief system.

Background

To see the list of subjects to be discussed in this series see my blog (Christianity – Is it a Faith Driven by Fear?).  Contained within that blog is a reference, 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity and in that reference is a list which is the springboard from which this subject has been discussed.