Friday, February 23, 2007

Sacking the Egyptians

So at first the Party Line was that people who took the Bible seriously, and therefore were not communicants in the High Church of Darwin, were just idiots. They simply did not understand science. They were stupid. That's why they didn't accept The Truth. If they could rub two neurons together and get a spark, they'd be materialistic evolutionists.

Then when that didn't quite work out, it was often and loudly proclaimed that No Scientists Doubted Evolution.

But the (oft-documented) dirty little secret was that they had both an Inquisition, and a neat little circle going. The circle went like this:
No scientist doubts evolution
If you doubt evolution, you aren't a scientist
Therefore, no scientist doubts evolution
The inquisition was that anyone who questioned evolution was either barred from doctoral-track programs, denied recommendation, or otherwise penalized for his heresy. I've discussed some of this more extensively, previously.

So now this paradigm is being challenged by students who take the hard science courses, do well in them, and still have the audacity to reject the white-coated Magisterium. And it really, really ticks them off.

Read the squawking and whining here.

Then observe a moment of silence at the graveside of the myth that science is a wide-open field that eschews all dogma and philosophy, loves freethinkers, and cheers on every challenge to orthodoxy.


Rand said...

I'm a reseach technician in a Federal Lab in Canada. I've seen how everything you wrote in your post is 100% fact.

I'm a technician, so it's okay for me to be stupid and reject Darwinism. As long as I fix things and get results for the Ph.Ds, then I can believe in Santa Clause for all they care. They definitely think I'm a moron, but they don't care.

When we are talking about Ph.Ds though, it's a whole different ball game. Ph.Ds who don't toe the line of evolution are ostrasized by the scientific community like the pope use to excommunicate anyone who would not agree with him. Truth is irrelevant.

"Then observe a moment of silence at the graveside of the myth that science is a wide-open field that eschews all dogma and philosophy, loves freethinkers, and cheers on every challenge to orthodoxy."

Oh brother, that death occured a long, LONG TIME AGO!



LeeC said...

That Herald article is a page not found Bro.
But I hear you anyways.
I hate this term, but it fits here the secular scientific community is downright "Orwellian" in it's doublspeak.

"We need to get rid of Christianity, all it is is dogma" says the most dogmatic crowd around.

"You Christians would have us thinking the world is flat!"

When in reality if you read the autographa it is clear that it was predominantly the scientific community of the time whose tenure rested upon an Aristotelian cosmology. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good spin.

Have you seen the latest from Eugenie Scott? That woman has a very sad awkening coming one day. I pray the Lord would open her eyes first.

Those not familiar with Eugenies special brand of impartial scinece might find some insight from Dr. Richard Sternbergs website:

A career ruined because he dared think outside of Darwins box. And the man has two PhDs in the area of evolutionary biology, one in molecular (DNA) evolution and the other in systems theory and theoretical biology. But none of that matters because he challenged her diety, he must be burned....with your tax dollars I might add.

Nero would be pleased.

DJP said...

Sorry, that page got dropped.

I've re-linked to a Google cached page. Get it while it's hot.

LeeC said...

Got it.

Were we on the same page or what?

Kaffinator said...

Oh, I know this is going to get me in trouble, but I just can't help it...

SALEM, Massachusetts: There is nothing much unusual about the leadership of Rich Bernhart, new pastor of Living Hope Community Church. After assuming his role, he ditched the seven-piece worship team in favor of a more traditional piano-and-hymnbook style, and began preaching sermons based on books of the Bible and the complete sovereignty of God, rather than the more topical and practical sermons given by his predecessors.

But Bernhart is hardly a conventional conservative pastor. Unknown to many of the people in his congregation, Bernhart’s tacitly endorses a “methodological naturalism” in which it is held that natural laws are infrequently, if ever, broken. “The sciences,” said Bernhart, “have benefited immensely from that assumption, and I’m happy to receive the blessings of scientific research.”

For him, Bernhart said, scripture study and active participation in Christian fellowship is only one “paradigm” for understanding the world around us, whereas the view offered by, say, contemporary geology and astrophysics, supplies another, complimentary, worldview. That’s why Bernhart sees no contradiction in utilizing contemporary technologies and medical advances based wholly upon a scientific materialist worldview, such as computer software and vaccinations against disease.

But not everyone is happy with that approach. “I just went bananas when I heard about this,” said Beth Tessano, a former Living Hope church member. “When Ricky preached about Jesus being our only hope, I really thought he believed that. But when his wife had abdominal pains, I heard that he immediately entrusted her to a doctor practicing methodological naturalism rather than relying solely on the traditional Christian means of prayer, fasting, and exorcism. How could a minister of God turn his back on the faith like that? So I’ve taken my tithes elsewhere.”

Others say the crucial issue is not whether Bernhart actually uses cars, the internet, telephones, or other innovations wrought by methodological naturalism, but whether he intends to abuse the pulpit to advance unorthodox thinking. “Shoot, I’m sure I’ve inadvertently eaten a genetically engineered banana or two, but that shouldn’t disqualify me from church life,” said David Orwitz, a Living Hope member who resides in a cave north of town. “Sanctification from the philosophy of materialistic naturalism is a process, not an instantaneous change. I’m sure that, in time, Bernart will come to reject modern science just as I have.”


LeeC said...

Not sure I follow you Kaff. Is this from the onion or something?

The vitriol by the irrational can get so out of bounds that, that "article" might not be a spoof so I'm unsure.

Kaffinator said...

Actually, I wrote it. But I will take your suggestion that it's from the onion as a form of praise :-)

As for my point, what seems absurd to you about the article?

DJP said...

Kaffinator—if you want to say something, say it. If you want to bait folks and see who wants to play, start your own blog.

Please don't come here and do it.


Kaffinator said...

But of course, Dan. Everyone may return to the exchange of cactus recipes already in progress. Thank you.

DJP said...

Aigh, cactus! Not AGAIN with the CACTUS!!!

< throws stuffed teddy at monitor >

candy said...

It is interesting to see the science community dealing with the Global Warming issue much the same as they dealt with the evolution issue. A scientist is either on the boat, funded and parroting the popular view, or ostracised for disagreeing with the Global Warming consensus.

Fr. Bill said...

Coming in a bit tardy (only recently found this blog) ...

The phenomenon Dan describes - creationist graduate students in the sciences being denied degrees - is something I observed to happen to a married couple in the Bible church I attended at Texas Tech University during the mid-70s. The husband was a grad student (already doing course work and research) in geology, his wife doing the same in the biology department. When the geology department head discovered the husband's convictions, he informed the husb that there was no way he was going to be awarded a PhD, so he'd better just move along somewhere else. He also alerted the head of the biology department, who made the same decision regarding the wife.

Fast forward to the present, where my daughter -- in the same university, in my old undergraduate major (chemistry) -- reports that almost every faculty member of the department is some form of serious, theologically conservative Christian (Protestant evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox). Admitted, on the surface chemistry will less overtly collide with a Biblical worldview than biology or geology. But, still ... I was surprised at her report. In subsequent conversations with the current department head (a Catholic) I heard additional evidence of the Christian convictions of most of the chemistry faculty.

When I inquired about the faculty there when I was undergraduate, I learned from the current department head that the deptpartment head back then was an elder in the OPC. As I was not Christian in those days, those details sailed past me.

The point: the anti-Christian animus is still alive and well today as it was 35 years ago. On the other hand, one might find today pockets of allegiance to mere Christianity or more fully developed forms of the faith, even within the secular university. This doesn’t mean things are getting “better.” Just that they’re more interesting than during my undergraduate days.