Recently we’ve seen quite a rash of “celebrity scientists.” Most everyone knows this started with Carl Sagan and his popular, newly revamped show, Cosmos. Bill Nye and Neil Tyson have stepped up to fill his celebrity role as a scientist who is also good at speaking.
In case you think I’m picking on materialists, Ken Ham could probably be considered a celebrity scientist as well.
But that’s the thing. Most of these men stand in direct, outspoken opposition to the gospel. Can a Christian in good conscience appreciate The Science Guy or the new (or old) Cosmos? We may agree with some of the science presented here – but a great deal of it is not science at all; rather it is propaganda carefully crafted by fools (who say in their heart, there is no God) and falsely called science.
I like science. I like knowing weird things like how gravity might work and what relativity means. It’s temptingly refreshing when a man like Tyson brings that sort of thing into public opinion and makes it popular.
Despite that, despite how much I want to say I enjoy Nye and laugh at Tyson’s jokes and sit in awe of Sagan, I can’t. If I am of Christ, I cannot ally myself with men who have spit on his Name. That’s all there is to it.
“Sure, Hitler committed terrible crimes, but his paintings weren’t half bad, so I’m a big Hitler fan.” (The best defense against Godwin’s Law is to admit it right away)
These men are militant atheists. We are the Body of Christ. How can we who died to sin live any longer in it?
I’ve got good and bad so far.
Within the first couple pages, he’s already laying out the terms. There is no battle between science and Christianity. Science is a tool…it’d be like saying WWII was a battle between the Allies and the guns. Doesn’t make any sense. The war is between differing philosophies – the philosophy of Christianity and the philosophy of materialism.
At root, materialism is “an epistemological critique of religion.” The materialist claims that the Christians basis for truth is incorrect (God) and that there is a better source of truth (which varies but is inevitably dependent on the infallibility of man). These sorts of debates are never about the actual proofs or evidences involved; those may help or hurt a case, but the real issue is “Who do we believe?” Who is the more credible witness?
Of course, because materialism is not based on the Triune God of Scripture, it is inherently illogical from the start. There is also a glaring error in assuming that the self is the basis of knowledge.
For a person to accept as knowledge only what he had discovered and proved for himself from direct personal experience would put his knowledge at the level of the Stone Age.
There is very little (if anything) that we know based on our own experience. Even that which we claim to know from our own experience is interpreted based on rules or methods we picked up from other people.
Science is not scientism. Scientism is essentially materialism in the specific guise of the scientific community. And it is not the basis of truth.
Then he started to go into specifics. The first problem he tackled was that of genesis, concerning beginnings.
He considers the theory of the Big Bang a great leap for Christian science, because it implies that time had a finite, defined beginning. Unfortunately, this is the common conception of the Big Bang, not the scientifically stated theory, which says nothing about the Big Bang being the absolute beginning. The theory was developed in light of anti-creationism and only holds true in that light. Barr appears to be (at least so far) in favor of a theistic evolutionary mindset, which Bolton Davidheiser eloquently demonstrated was paramount to denying the Gospel altogether.
We shall see how this develops.