WorldNetDaily: Science Is Biblical

Buffoon Award

The blaring sirens and flashing lights of the Drool-o-tron™ alerted us to this one. The blinking letters of its wall display said WorldNetDaily (WND) — the flamingly creationist, absolutely execrable, moronic, and incurably crazed journalistic organ that believes in and enthusiastically promotes every conspiracy theory that ever existed. As you know, WND was an early winner of the Curmudgeon’s Buffoon Award, thus the jolly logo displayed above this post.

The Drool-o-tron™ had locked our computer onto this article at WND’s website: Science conceding Earth must have had a Creator, which already has almost 100 comments.

The author is Bill Federer, a frequent writer for WND. Recently he’s been posting a strange series of articles about American history in which he picks out some important event, then quotes the President’s public mention of the Creator, or perhaps he describes a general’s visit to church which coincided with a victory, attempting to give the impression that everything good that has ever happened in American history was due to divine activity resulting from answered prayers.

In today’s article, Federer is applying his same method of “analysis” to the history of science. As he describes it, science is the result of one big celebration of religion that has been going on for centuries. This historical “technique” goes far beyond mere quote-mining, of which he does a lot. It’s what we might call reality mining. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

“O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee!” wrote astronomer Johannes Kepler, 1619, in “The Harmonies of the World.”

It’s interesting that the first event in Federer’s history of religion-inspired science occurred a millennium and a half after the beginning of Christianity. What about the religion-dominated but scientifically barren centuries before Kepler? They’re not mentioned.

And observe — Kepler doesn’t say that his discoveries were revealed in scripture. Indeed, nothing ever accomplished by any scientist was based on specific scriptural doctrine or data. Indeed, science didn’t begin to make progress until it rejected biblical teachings such as The Earth Is Flat! and The Earth Does Not Move!

Note also that Federer doesn’t mention what the Wikipedia article on Johannes Kepler tells us — Kepler was also a bit of an astrologer, albeit a selective one. Wikipedia says:

While Kepler considered most traditional rules and methods of astrology to be the “evil-smelling dung” in which “an industrious hen” scrapes, there was an “occasional grain-seed, indeed, even a pearl or a gold nugget” to be found by the conscientious scientific astrologer.

That was only the first paragraph in Federer’s extremely selective romp through the history of science. Then, still quote-mining Kepler, he says:

In comparing celestial orbits of the planets with polyphonic harmonies in music, Kepler wrote in “The Harmonies of the Worlds” (1619): “Holy Father, keep us safe in the concord of our love for one another, that we may be one just as Thou art with Thy Son, Our Lord, and with the Holy Ghost, and just as through the sweetest bonds of harmonies Thou hast made all Thy works one, and that from the bringing of Thy people into concord, the body of Thy Church may be built up in the Earth, as Thou didst erect the heavens themselves out of harmonies.”

That’s certainly good science. Let’s read on:

In the conclusion of his treatise, “The Harmonies of the Worlds” (1619), Johannes Kepler wrote: “I thank Thee, my Creator and Lord, that Thou hast given me this joy in Thy creation, this delight in the works of Thy hands; I have shown the excellency of Thy works unto man, so far as my finite mind was able to comprehend Thine infinity; if I have said aught of Thy glory, graciously forgive it.”

Was Kepler serious, or were those words just sugar-coating to keep the Inquisition from his door? At the time he wrote that, he had to be aware that Giordano Bruno had been burned alive in 1600 for his astronomical teachings. We’ll never know. Anyway, Federer continues:

Two centuries later, Yale professor Benjamin Silliman, who in 1818 founded the American Journal of Science and Arts, stated: “The relation of geology, as well as astronomy, to the Bible, when both are well understood, is that of perfect harmony. … The Word and the works of God cannot conflict, and the more they are studied the more perfect will their harmony appear.”

Huh? Benjamin Silliman (1779 – 1864) was a chemist who began teaching in 1804. Wikipedia says: “As professor emeritus, he delivered lectures at Yale on geology until 1855 … .” That was well after the works of James Hutton, the “Father of Modern Geology” were published, but before Darwin’s theory was published in 1859. And it was long before we knew about distant galaxies and the Big Bang.

Then Federer quotes extensively from the Wall Street Journal article by Eric Metaxas, titled “Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God,” about which we wrote: More Creationism in the Wall Street Journal. At the time we said it was exactly like something posted at the Discoveroids’ blog.

Federer doesn’t have anything else to say, so presumably he thinks he’s made his case. According to him, science has always been found in and supported by the bible. And that’s the latest from WorldNetDaily.

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

9 responses to “WorldNetDaily: Science Is Biblical

  1. Oh, for God’s sake (so to speak). Of course these scientists thought of nature as originating with God. So what? That says nothing about how God did it, or on what time scale.

    As for Prof. Silliman’s quoted comment, the good professor left himself plenty of wiggle room with the words “when properly understood,” since it’s up to his audience to guess whether he’s referring to understanding of science, the Bible or both. Only in the first case is he supporting a purely literal interpretation of the Scriptures; in the latter two he’s hinting that the Bible itself may have to be “understood” in a way compatible with science. in his piece for WorldNutDaily, Federer glides right past this, either blissfully ignorant or confident that his suckers, er, readers won’t pick on it, their brains having already been liquefied by overexposure to creationist nonsense.

  2. Why do these guys always quote dead scientists, usually long dead ones? Why not simply ask a few living scientists, who are well respected in their respective fields, what they think? Wouldn’t that be easier, more interesting, and much more relevant?

    I know, it’s a rhetorical question.

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    I just don’t see how anyone call the bible scientific. If you want to infer science from the stories and history it lays out, maybe it gives you some tidbits. But lesson from the value of pi, you have to expect some rounding to occur, and that ain’t true science.

  4. It should be noted that, at the time these scientists were writing, most (all?) universities were religious institutions. It is therefore completely unsurprising that quite a bit of religious language crept in. That does not mean that the religious aspect itself had a positive impact.

  5. Could they at least dig up a quote from a scientist that is less than a hundred years old?

  6. “What about the religion-dominated but scientifically barren centuries before Kepler?”
    Especially in Byzantium – a christian empaire that badlay needed some divinely inspired scientific renovations. And Byzantine scholars had access to the same documents from Antiquity as Copernicus, who studied them in Italy.
    Ah, now only if we knew if Copernicus also had read Aristarchos of Samos ….

    “Was Kepler serious, or were those words just sugar-coating to keep the Inquisition from his door?”
    I’d say both. The dominant attitude – Bruno was quite an exception and btw not burned because of his scientific activities, which weren’t that relevant – was that science was a second road to knowledge of God. There is no reason to assume that Kepler was an exception.

    “burned alive in 1600 for his astronomical teachings”
    Nope. He was burned for his theological heretics, which had preciously little to do with astronomy.

  7. How is it that these morons can defend the “actions” of prayers? Are they saying that God’s divine plan is incorrect? That God wasn’t paying attention? That God needed to be reminded of something? Just what is a prayer to an all-powerful, all-knowing God? Was He not aware of those prayers (being outside of time and space) when He created His plan? If God changes His mind, what does that say about God?

    Amazing that these people would use prayers as evidence for God’s existence, when they actually refute God’s powers.

  8. @Ed: Dead scientists are much less likely to object to being quote-mined.

  9. Science is not biblical, but academic freedom laws are religious. This article claims to quote a former Discovery Institute employee.