I promised a while back that I’d review scientific articles that dealt with Christianity and theological science, and since I am a man of my word, I now begin.
I’ve got a lot of resources to read, and so for the first review I picked a work that I just recently familiarized myself with, because I feel it sets a good groundwork for the rest of my reviews.
The article in question is “A Brief History of Intolerance in Modern Cosmology,” and it’s not what you think. While written by a creationist, and published in the Answers in Genesis journal, it actually does not go into any deep science, nor does it defend or refute creationism over secular beliefs.
What it does accomplish is to show how intolerance and blind acceptance permeates even the unbelieving segment of the scientific community. The example that Dr. Bergman uses is the belief in the Big Bang cosmology. This model is heavily flawed and doubted by many. Obviously, any Reformed Christian will see it as at worst a complete lie and at best a perversion of the truth. The model simply does not fit with empirical data, and obviously conflicts with God’s Word.
Despite these shortcomings, it is blindly accepted by nearly every mainstream scientist. Others have purported alternative theories, but these are largely ignored. And here’s the interesting part: attempting to prove the invalidity of the Big Bang cosmology will result in your near-unanimous ostracization by the scientific communities. By that, I mean that your articles will be rejected from peer review (a crucial step in acceptance), you will be denied access to laboratories, rejected from research positions, and essentially completely cut off from the scientific world.
Let me be completely clear. These are not creation scientists purporting these theories (mostly. Obviously we exist, but that’s not the point of the paper). These are God-hating naturalists. If they disprove the Big Bang cosmology it would only be to install an equally nontheistic model in its place. And yet, for the crime of questioning the origin story, they are laughed to shame.
That sheds extensive light on modern scientism’s critiques of creation science. They cry at us “show us your peer reviewed papers,” when they refuse to read papers that contradict their tightly held beliefs. They accuse us of “rejecting that which has been proven and accepting that which cannot be proven” and yet they are guilty of the same sin (if indeed sin can exist in a naturalistic universe).
The spirit of scientific inquiry demands that all ideas be given equal weight on the playing field and sorted through means of empirical data. Having used this theorem extensively and incorrectly to worm their way into the positions of authority, they turn around and demand that their theory be given so much weight as to be exclusive of all others.
I find this fascinating. For one, it shows once again that science is a religion. Second, it relieves us of the duty of proving our thesis and gives them the burden of proving theirs in the light of true impartial research.
The evidence for a created universe is quite literally all around us. Yet, if we “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” then there is no limit to the BS that we may invent. A man who desperately wants to believe he is right and you are wrong will not budge no matter how much “empirical evidence” is thrown in his face.
This also prevents them from using this same excuse to avoid reviewing papers written by Christian authors. This is a detriment for the following reasons:
While obviously their intentions are good, many Christian scientists argue from flawed and deistic premises, and thus are doomed from the start no matter how much science they may know.
The majority of Christian scientists are this way, sadly. Notice that the great age of science was kickstarted by such men as Leibniz, Newton, and Maxwell, who were all Calvinists. Secular scientists either refuse to review Christian articles, or they head into it with the determination to declare it wrong whatever the cost. Their mind is already made up (a major scientific sin).
The articles that do get reviewed are denounced as heretical to the Church of Modern Science.
Any good Christian scientists with sound science and solid theological foundations are forced to turn, not to “accepted” scientists for review, but to the rejected ones. Hence, any work they publish is doomed to be stamped as reviewed by a “bad” scientist, and can safely be ignored by scientists who do not want to be challenged. Faith is faith, after all. It’s a vicious cycle.
This, of course, places heavy pressure on us to seek out sound Christian science, and continue to do so despite criticisms and jeering. Very often, genius is not recognized until after it is gone.
We should also seek to be above reproach, and I believe that this can be extended to scientific knowledge. Do not be wrong…that is, do not misrepresent God through His Creation.
Read the full article here.
In the next installment of this series, I will either explore the modern psychological divide between science and Christianity, or I’ll go a bit into Galileo’s story and how again it’s intolerance, but again, not like you think.