We found a goody for today. It’s titled Does science disprove God?, at the website of the Journal Review of Crawfordsville, Indiana. They have a comments feature, but we don’t see any yet. We’re not certain, but we think it was written by Father Michael Bower of St. Bernard Church, in Crawfordsville.
We don’t know if we should treat this one as a letter-to-the-editor, so we’ll just treat it normally. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
There is a story about Napoleon that I have found to be a striking example of our modern mentality about God. According to the story, he asked a famous physicist to produce a model of the universe. When this physicist produced it, Napoleon was impressed, but also perplexed. He asked why God was nowhere to be seen in the model. The physicist replied: “We no longer have need for that hypothesis.”
There are different versions of that story. In the Wikipedia article on Pierre-Simon Laplace, the scientist to whom Napoleon was speaking, there’s a section titled “I had no need of that hypothesis,” which is the response usually attributed to Laplace. Anyway, then the rev says:
Is that not such a typical example of how many of us think today? With all the advances of modern science it is easy to think that religion has now been replaced by science or that to be religious is to be unscientific.
But the rev sees things differently. He tells us:
I remember when I was in junior high, my teacher prefaced his lectures on evolution by saying that Christians don’t need to believe what he was teaching, because of the Bible. [Hee hee!] So, basically the impression I got was, to be Christian is to ignore science. [Gasp!] Now, if he would have said that many modern scientists are even questioning evolution on the basis of scientific evidence [They are?], I would have come away with a different message. But instead of that, he said that it contradicts the Bible, therefore it can be ignored.
Shocking. Absolutely shocking. The rev continues:
Studies have shown that the main reason people give up on belief in God, particularly the youth, is precisely this: they think it is unscientific and therefore not credible. But is this true? No.
Wowie — it’s not true that religion is unscientific. Let’s read on:
Most of the key scientists in history have believed in God. Newton, Galileo, Copernicus and Einstein all believed in God. [Well, Newton did.] I would even suggest that it is extremely difficult to have science without belief in God. [What?] How else can we explain the laws of science? Why isn’t everything just random? Some historians of science have actually argued that the main reason why science advanced so much in western civilization is precisely because of the Christian belief that God created and designed the various structures and laws of the universe.
Amazing. We debunked the claim that science arose from religion in Common Creationist Claims Confuted, in the section titled Great scientists of old were creationists. Okay, here’s another excerpt from the rev’s column:
What is even cooler [Cooler!], I think, as a Catholic, is just how influential the Catholic church in particular has been in the advance of science. For example, it was a Catholic monk who invented the scientific method. [What?] It was the Catholic church who produced so many of the influential scientists — many of them were even priests. For example, did you know that the collaborator with Einstein who first formulated the theory of the Big Bang was a Catholic priest?
Wikipedia’s article on History of scientific method starts with the ancient Greeks. It’s definitely not a creationist achievement. Here’s more from the rev:
But what about Galileo? Didn’t the Catholic Church condemn him because of his scientific discoveries? [Yes!] Even though this is often said, it simply isn’t true. [What?] Galileo’s discoveries were welcomed by the church. [BWAHAHAHAHAHA!] As a matter of fact, the Pope who censored his work was actually the one who had been funding most of his research. The reason why Galileo was censored is because the heliocentric model was still not proven by his research. There are many aspects of his theory that are actually considered laughable by modern astronomers (i.e. the motion of the tides). Astronomers were already interested in the heliocentric model before Galileo. It is just that nobody had been able to produce enough evidence to prove that it was more satisfactory than the geocentric model of the solar system.
That paragraph is the biggest pile of you-know-what we’ve seen in a long time. If you haven’t read it recently, see Galileo affair.
After quoting Stephen Hawking out of context, the rev concludes with this:
Galileo’s work was censored because he was overstating his case trying to argue that the geocentric model had been officially disproved by his findings. But it hadn’t been. In other words, the church censored his work, because Galileo, himself, was being unscientific about his findings.
That was one of the worst ever! You agree, don’t you, dear reader?
Copyright © 2022. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.