Once again, we visit the cutting-edge thinkers at the Discovery Institute. The latest at their creationist blog is In a New Book, Philosopher J.P. Moreland Exposes Bankrupt Scientism. Ooooooooooooh! Bankrupt scientism.
The Discoveroid post was written by Sarah Chaffee. They describe her as “Program Officer in Education and Public Policy at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. She earned her B.A. in Government. During college she interned at Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler’s office and for Prison Fellowship Ministries.” We call her “Savvy Sarah.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
A chemist-turned-philosopher, J.P. Moreland approaches the intersection of science and worldviews with a love and respect for both. A Center for Science & Culture fellow [i.e., a Discoveroid creationist] and distinguished professor of philosophy at Biola University [a bible college], Dr. Moreland is just out with a new book, Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology.
Here’s the book at Amazon. The publisher is Crossway, which describes itself as “a not-for-profit ministry in 1938, to publish gospel-centered, Bible-centered content that will honor our Savior and serve his Church.” We can’t tell from their website if they’re a vanity publisher. Maybe not. Anyway, Savvy Sarah says:
He argues that scientism is bankrupt. It pervades the culture and, ironically perhaps, harms both science and faith. What is scientism? Moreland writes:
Roughly, scientism is the view that the hard sciences — like chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy — provide the only genuine knowledge of reality. At the very least, this scientific knowledge is vastly superior to what we can know from any other discipline. Ethics and religion may be acceptable, but only if they are understood to be inherently subjective and regarded as private matters of opinion.
Ooooooooooooh! Scientism is bad! Savvy Sarah tells us:
Moreland mounts a strong attack on this influential but ultimately unsound ideology. He begins by describing the impact of scientism and its internal contradictions. … Moreland argues that theism should be preferred over scientism. Finally, he issues a call to integrate science with Christianity.
A worthy objective! Skipping a lot, she continues:
Scientism focuses on experiments; the philosopher is free to acknowledge limitations and the necessary authority of the subjective observer. [Yeah, phooey on objectivity!] But in what areas should philosophy precede science? Moreland says questions about the beginning of the universe, an ex nihilo beginning, the origin of the life and the origin of the mind require philosophical answers.
Right — phooey on science! Let’s read on:
Moreland notes that we can even conceive of life in non-embodied entities, such as angels. Life fails to fit neatly into the researcher’s sphere of authority, as it is difficult to test all of the above in the lab. But philosophers can speak to its nature.
Yes — hooray for angels! Another excerpt:
Another key part is Moreland’s response to the God-of-the-gaps charge, often leveled against the theory of intelligent design. … Design supposedly fills holes of ignorance with “God did it” and so will always lose ground. Moreland’s response? I’ll just give you a teaser:
[Here’s the teaser:] First, within the intelligent design model, God’s causal activity is clearly not limited to gaps. God constantly and actively sustains and governs the universe at all times. Nature is not autonomous. Moreover, intelligent design theory need not have any apologetic aim at all. A Christian theist (or a Muslim, for that matter) may simply believe that he or she should consult all that we know or have reason to believe is true, including theological beliefs, in forming, evaluating, and testing scientific theories and in explaining scientific phenomena. And even if someone uses an intelligent design approach with apologetic intentions, intelligent design advocates do not limit their apologetic case to gaps. The model merely recognizes a distinction between primary and secondary causes and goes on to assert that at least the former could have scientifically testable implications irrespective of the apologetic intentions of such a recognition.
Wowie — that was impressive! The intelligent designer — blessed be he! — isn’t merely a god of the gaps, he explains everything!
The Discoveroid article is rather long, so we’ll cut this short. Here’s how it ends:
I have no doubt this new book will advance the case for design among young academic seekers, who, like Moreland himself, love asking the big questions about the universe.
That’s it, dear reader. Now you have another great book to add to your creationist library. Darwinism is doomed!
Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.