For a long time, scientists and historians and philosophers of science have struggled to try and figure out how we can know which theories of science are true and which are false. It is a very difficult problem, and my first book Quest for Truth: Scientific Progress and Religious Beliefs (2000) focused on this very question.
But Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has found the solution!
Are science and Christianity friends? The answer to that is an emphatic yes, for any true science will be perfectly compatible with the truths we know by God’s revelation. But this science is not naturalistic, while modern science usually is. Too many evangelicals try to find middle ground, only to end up arguing for positions that combine theological surrender with scientific naïveté. [My italics]
Got that? We don’t need no stinkin’ evidence and reason and logic and math and all that high falutin’ stuff to determine which scientific theories are true. The ones that agree with what is in my particular holy book as interpreted by what my particular Magic Man whispers in my ear is what is true. Simple, isn’t it?
Of course, this is what the pope told Galileo a long time ago. If we had simply listened to the pope then, we could have stayed at the same level of scientific development as at that time. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?
The invaluable cartoon strip Jesus and Mo deserves to have the last word on this topic.
Funny, I thought that any true science would be perfectly compatible with observable reality. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be science, but instead “wishful thinking,” or “willful delusion.”
This is actually sort of a refreshing article (as refreshing as an article propagating bunk can be). Coyne said that there is no middle ground, and this author agrees with him. Coyne said that many religious folks, when faced with scientific evidence against a particular religious dogma, would choose religion over science. This author agrees. I’d much rather have religious people admit the disconnect and their decision to choose religion over evidence than have them attempt some sort of convoluted path of semi-reason in order to try to merge the two views. It makes discrediting them easier and keeps things like “intelligent design” out of play.
Matt,
I agree with you. People like Mohler are pretty clear about about that they stand for.