That’s a peculiar question. We might also ask: Is chemistry secular? Or physics? Or astronomy, geology, or — gasp! — biology? Surely they’re not religious endeavors! Well, let’s see what AIG can do with their question. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us and AIG’s scripture references omitted:
Many people today insist that science can only be done by people who have a secular worldview — or at least by those who are willing to leave their religious views at the door as they enter the science lab. Several popular atheists and evolutionists have contended that people who reject the big bang and the evolution of living things are so backward that they cannot even be involved in developing new technologies.
We suppose it’s possible for a chemist to believe in Noah’s Flood. That bible tale is unlikely to interfere with his chemistry work — but he’d certainly be a strange individual. More from AIG:
A friend of the ministry was recently challenged by the comment that science can only be done through a purely secular evolutionary framework. We have decided to publish a response for the sake of teaching. Such statements are blatantly absurd and are a type of arbitrary fallacy called an “ignorant conjecture.” In other words, these people simply do not know the past, nor are they familiar with what science really is.
A “purely secular evolutionary framework” is necessary for science? We doubt that physicists need to think much about evolution while doing their work. Let’s read on:
If science is a strictly secular endeavor without any need for a biblical worldview, then why were most fields of science developed by Bible-believing Christians? For example, consider Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Johann Kepler, Galileo Galilei …
Yeah, yeah — we’ve seen the list before. Those people lived before Darwin (except Pasteur, who was a contemporary), and their work had nothing to do with biological evolution. Not only that, but their work had nothing to do with creationism either. Nothing in science — absolutely nothing! — is based on six-day creation, Noah’s Flood, or any other scriptural miracles. AIG continues:
Even in modern times, the inventor of the MRI scanning machine, Dr. Raymond Damadian, is a Christian working with Christian principles.
What, pray tell, is “Christian” about the MRI scanning machine? Is it based on six-day creation? Or on anything else that was ever taught by the creationists of AIG? Here’s more:
And those who recently founded the scientific field of baraminology are also Christians.
Baraminology? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Okay, we’ll give them that one. What else have they got?
And let’s not forget Werner Von Braun, the young-earth Christian who was the founder of rocket science and led the U.S. to the moon.
Okay, we’ll credit creationism for The Blitz. Maybe von Braun used Noah’s Ark as a model for his V-2 rockets, but we doubt it. [Addendum: Werner von Braun wasn't a YEC, as is pointed out in the comments.] Moving along:
Furthermore, science comes out of a Christian worldview. Only the God described in the Bible can account for a logical and orderly universe. God upholds the universe in a particular way, such that we can study it by observational and repeatable experimentation. Because God upholds the universe in a consistent manner, we have a valid reason to expect that we can study the world we live in and describe the laws that God uses to sustain the universe.
Hogwash. AIG’s scriptural concept of the universe is riddled with impossible events that are impervious to rational analysis — such as the aforementioned six-day creation, the global flood, and an Ark-load of other miracles and divine interventions that make no scientific sense whatsoever. Another excerpt:
In the secular view, where all matter originated by chance from nothing, there is no ultimate cause or reason for anything that happens, and explanations are constantly changing, so there is no basis for science. … On what basis should we expect a universe that came from nothing and for no reason to act in a predictable and consistent manner? When non-Christians do real science by observable and repeatable experimentation, they are actually assuming a biblical worldview, even if they do not realize it.
That was a difficult paragraph. We’ll pause for a moment while you untwist your brain. Everybody okay now? Very well, on with the article:
It makes sense why “science” in the U.S. is losing out to other nations since our science education system now limits science in the classroom exclusively to the religion of secular humanism.
Ah, so that’s the reason the US is falling behind — not enough creation science is being taught in our schools. What other insights does AIG have for us?
So, the debate is not “science versus religion.” It is really “religion versus religion.” Sadly, science is caught up in the middle. The battle is between the religion of secular humanism (with its variant forms like agnosticism, atheism, and the like), which is usually called secularism or humanism for short, and Christianity.
Humanism has astronomical evolution (big bang), geological evolution (millions of years of slow gradual changes), chemical evolution (life came from non-life) and biological evolution (original, single-celled life evolved into all life forms we have today over billions of years) in its view of origins. In other words, evolution (as a whole) is a subset of the dogma of the religion of humanism in the same way as biblical creation (as a whole, with six-day Creation, the Fall, global Flood, and the Tower of Babel) is a subset of the dogma of Christianity. It is a battle over two different religions.
Aaaargh!! How much more can we take? Not much, and this is a long essay. We’ll give you one more nugget, and then we’ll have to abandon this one. Here it comes:
[E]volutionists have continued to popularize Darwin’s scientific observation of the changes in beaks of Galapagos finches as proof for the evolution of one animal kind into another. This is a great example of the bait and switch fallacy where scientists present real scientific evidence (the difference in finch beaks) but stretch the truth to say it gives validity to the Greek mythology of microbes to man evolution (the “switch” part of the fallacy). This trick leads many to believe that evolution is real science. …
People are baited with this good methodology of science (again developed by a Christian named Francis Bacon) and then they are told that evolution is science while subtly appealing to another added definition: that of “natural science” or “naturalism.” This is like saying another definition of science is “Nazism.” Then Nazis could say they are “scientists” and get into a classroom! This is what has happened with humanism.
That charlatan Darwin — all he had to support his theory was a few finch beaks. Okay, we have to stop our descent into AIG’s pit of madness or it may overwhelm us. Go ahead, dear reader, click over there and read it all. Who knows? You may be persuaded that we should abandon our concept of science and embrace theirs. Their viewpoint may be the one that takes us to the stars. But if you’ll forgive your Curmudgeon, we have serious doubts about that.
Addendum: We must give AIG’s article our Rosie Ruiz award. They have claimed the prize, but they haven’t run the race.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.