Posts Tagged ‘creationism’

For anyone who has been sleeping under a rock, Ken Ham and Bill Nye the Science gathered for what could be a rehash of popular stereo-types.  About a year ago, I wrote a piece on Bill Nye and Young Earth Creationism (YEC). This blog then will skim over the hits and misses that both men made in the debate.  As a caveat, I only watched the debate up until end of the rebuttals.  This was because that’s where the basic points were laid out, and because I ran out of shots of rum to keep me though this circus.  Without further ado, here’s how I think both men did and why we need to do better next time.

Bill Nye

Bill Nye made it clear throughout his debate that he had an axe to grind with YEC, not with Christianity in general.  This kept the debate from devolving into atheism v Christianity.  It also demonstrated, though not very vividly, that YEC is not a majority viewpoint.  Bill Nye theological fluency is limited (more on that later), but he is trying made his presentation different.

Nye made two points that Ken Ham did not deal with adequately.  First, he demonstrated that there were trees, with greater than 4000 tree rings meaning that these tress are more than 4000 years old.  Bill Nye made other arguments for the age of the earth, but I felt that this point was the easiest to understand.  Also, it pokes an eye in the global flood.  Furthermore, Nye took on the claim that Animal “kinds” went into the arc.  After that, YEC claims that micro evolutionary change created the species we know today.  Nye demonstrated, with math, how many new species per day that would mean.  Far too many, in his view, to be justified.

Bill Nye also argued that the genesis account might not be trusted because it is old, and has been translated many times.  Unfortunately, this point is where Nye shows a lack of theological fluency.  If we assume that if a book is old and a book has been translated, then it is not trustworthy, we have a serious problem with history.  In fact, there may be very little that we can know about the ancient world.  Furthermore, YEC aren’t particularly sophisticated in their reading of the Bible, but they are not so daft to believe that English is the only language they need.  Nye seemed out of his element when dealing with the Bible.

Nye, kept this message going: bring on the evidence, and scientists will happily change their minds without hesitation.  This is a noble ideal.  It is how science is perceived at a popular level.  Now consider the following three examples.  First, Blaise Pascal did an experiment with a mercury tube, a saucer, and a hike up a mountain.  He thought he demonstrated once and for all that vacuums can exist.  However, his detailed papers were harshly received, particularly by Rene Descartes who declared, “he [Pascal] has much vacuum in his head.”  Second, astronomer Robert Jastrow, an agnostic, detailed the story of how scientists reacted as evidence for the big bang in “God and the Astronomers.”  Scientists slowly accepted, but begrudgingly in part because of its theological implications according to Jastrow.  Finally, when every geocentric astronomer and Aristotelian physicist fought hard against Galilleo’s model in part because they needed to keep their jobs.  The point I am making here is Nye’s message about scientific objectivity is an ideal that does not so easily translate into reality.  Scientific paradigms do not turn on a dime.

Finally, and most importantly, Nye reiterated that he can’t accept that scientific laws changed.  However, at no point did I notice that Ken Ham made the claim that they did.  Nye then, seemed to be batting at a straw man with this assertion.

Ken Ham

Ken Ham is a rhetorician.  He is a sophist.  He is an ad-man.  As an ad-man, he uses celebrity endorsements.  In this case, his endorsements are a series of passionate scientists who endorse creationism like Bill Cosby Sells Jell-o.

As crass, and even artless as this was, it helped make Ken Ham make his strongest point.  Central to Nye’s thesis is this: creationism hold science back.  Look at fire alarms, rocket ships, and medicine.  The implication for Nye is not that we use the same laws to argue for origins that we do to make technology, it seems that as long as long as creationism is around, the progress of technology will slow down.

Ken Ham does not need to argue against this point, because his endorsements demonstrate that it is possible to contribute to science despite endorsing young earth creationism.  If a scientist can design a solar panel for a satellite or do research in bacteria growing on fruit, than I think an empirically minded person has to shrug their shoulders and admit that creationists are contributing to technology and medicine like any other.

I am not comfortable agreeing with Ham.  Nonetheless, he’s has a point.  The efficacy of the Polio vaccine rested on the isolation of the virus and a lot of animal testing, not an evolutionary model of human origins.  The process of Pasteurization kills microbes in milk no matter how old we believe the earth is.  The Apollo 8 capsule still went to space and back, even though the astronauts had the audacity to read the Genesis account over the radio.

While I realize that there is more Nye’s thesis, I think Ham laid down evidence -yes evidence- that Nye needs to overcome.  If a someone is a young earth creationist and contributes to technology and medicine, that’s a problem.  Nye can call them inconsistent.  He can declare them unfit to teach.  But he has a much harder time demonstrating that they hold back tangible, practical, scientific development.  Furthermore, Ken Ham asked Nye what medical advancement depend on the “molecules to man” evolutionary model.  Nye did not directly address this in his debate.

Better Debates

It may seem like I am coming out in support of Ham, but I’m not.  Like most people in this debate, I watched it with my mind made up, and it wasn’t going to change.  The real reason for debates like this is to deepen people’s understanding of both sides, and hopefully, see which one is better.  There has been some great message board discussion, here though are ways that debates like this might be better.

First, focus the question.  Part of the reason why neither guy looked great in this debate is that the question is too broad.  Rather than “is YEC an viable belief about origins” let’s focus it into specific aspects of YEC.  How about: is a global flood viable?  Are tree rings a viable indicator of the age of the earth?  How about radio carbon dating, or permafrost?  Could there have been a ship the size of Noah’s Arc and would it have been seaworthy?  The reason for this two fold.  First, meta-narratives like YEC and Macro-evolution are made of hundreds of tiny parts.  Second, when people change their mind about something, they do so slowly.

A second way to make the debate better is Bill Nye’s limit theological fluency.  The biggest gaffe that any speaker can make before Christians -not simply YEC fundies, but more ‘moderate’ Christians, and Christians scholars- is to disparage the Bible because it is old and translated.  This is informal logical fallacy (appeal to novelty) or what C.S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery.”  Additionally, the sciences of linguistics, archeology, and anthropology all play a role in the translation and understanding of the Bible.  So if we use science to translate it, why do we complain about its translation?

While there is no reason for Bill Nye to be what he admitted he is not (a theologian), he might have solicited the help of a few.  Nye presented, through perhaps a dry statistic, how many Christians disagree with Ham.  That’s a good start.  Now, imagine how much more effective that would have been if he gathered a few video clips as Ham did with his creationist scientists.  Perhaps Nye tried to recruit them, and failed.  I don’t know.  I wasn’t there.

Finally, Ham should debate someone else.  This doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate that Bill Nye debated him, but the following scenarios might help:

  • Ken Ham versus a Christian Theistic evolutionist: Is death before humankind reconcilable with a “goodness of creation”?
  • Ken Ham versus a Christian Old Earth Creationist: how old is the earth?
  • Ken Ham versus an Old Testament Scholar: what is the message of Genesis 1:1-2:3?

In sum, this debate did stimulate important discussion online.  It did demonstrate the vast gulf between the two views.  Hopefully the discussion will deepen in the minds of the people who watched it, and inspire them to a sense of greater investigation, and avoid the simple reinforcing of trite stereotypes.


This blog continues the perpetually prolonged discussion on why young people leave the church.  Now at last, we discuss the second hottest topic out of the original six at the Barna research.  Young people leave the church because it comes of as antagonistic towards science.  The Barna research expounds:

One of the reasons young adults feel disconnected from church or from faith is the tension they feel between Christianity and science. The most common of the perceptions in this arena is “Christians are too confident they know all the answers” (35%). Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in” (29%). Another one-quarter embrace the perception that “Christianity is anti-science” (25%). And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have “been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.” Furthermore, the research shows that many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries.

No one can hardly do this subject justice in one blog.  I hope then, to keep the comments brief and allow others to expand in comments.

Who is actually at fault here?

If Christianity is perceived as anti-science, than who is actually at fault here?  I mean this very seriously.  Is it entirely the dogmatic young earth creationists out there who give Christianity a bad name?  Or is the folks like Dawkins whose beliefs about science versus religion are equally dogmatic?

Consider the famous play Inherent the Wind.  The play dramatized the famous scopes monkey trial: a classic, early 20 century, courtroom case about evolution.  In the play, William Jennings Bryon is portrayed as religious fanatic who refused to read Darwin’s godless nonsense.  He ends the play in a kind of crazed mania.  However, during the actual trial, William Jennings Bryon is a bit more cool headed.  He did, in fact, read Darwin thoroughly.  The irony here is that the original court transcripts are available for anyone to read.

Another issue is the famous Galileo trial.  You will still find people on the internet who believe that the church thought the earth was flat, and that geocentric astronomy was written in the Bible.  This story is frequently told as if Galileo was the first person to look at the universe ‘rationally’ and his religious detractors were knuckle dragging barbarians.  This is not true.  The geocentric model was handed down to western civilization from Ptolemy -hardly a religious source- from the ancient world.  It was based largely on observation.  It tracked the motions of the sun, predicted eclipses, and it didn’t have to explain why “the earth moves even though it we don’t observe it.”  The Roman Catholic Church has long sense acknowledged that it was wrong to put Galileo on house arrest.  Furthermore, there were rational reasons to be skeptical of the heliocentric model.  The geocentric model has never been intrinsic to Christianity anyway.

I do think there are Christians who are anti-science.  However, I think that the perception that Church is anti-science isn’t not entirely the shoulders of Christians.  We can’t be held accountable for theatrical exaggerations or a simplified, anachronistic, text book telling of major scientific paradigm shifts.

Dropping it like it’s Hot

There is one point that Christians are at fault.  It’s one doctrine that needs to go away.  It’s called Young Earth Creationism.  I feel the need to be blunt on this one.  Young Earth Creationism -with its instance that the earth is less than ten thousand years old- has already been declared “embarrassing” by William Laine Craig.  That’s William Laine Craig, the conservative evangelical scholar at Biola University.  Some might say that we should “teach the controversy.”  It’s also true that Christians can disagree on this issue.  It this is true, now remember why young people leave.  They’re turned off by this entire debate.  Who is making the trouble then?   Consider that Ken Ham, of Answers in Genesis, was dis-invited from a home schooling convention because of “unchristian” behavior and rhetoric.

It is not that I think that Young Earth Creationism is bad for that reason only though.  I feel the dogma is riddled with holes and is ad hoc in responding to them.  It is a superficial interpretation of scripture promoted by sophistry and cute cartoons.  It is not that I simply think that YEC is the wrong.  It is that I feel it is so wrong it doesn’t even deserved to be discussed.  Is the church antagonistic towards science?  Not it is not.  So let’s kick YEC to the curb already!

Other Alternatives

There is at least one promising alternative to the (perceived) antagonistic attitude towards science.  Before going further, it needs to be clarified that this is not really about science itselfbut rather issues about the philosophy of science.  The former most high school students have a surface level grasp on.  The latter is not usually covered except by upper level college courses.  I guess what I am saying is, you’d have to be have a pretty exception home school program to hear about this one.

Consider the approach of Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga.  The really simple version of is like this: given a fully, unguided, naturalistic evolution, why should we trust our senses and our minds to fully understand reality?  This is not a scientific question that can be answered in a scientific way.  Trustworthy senses and minds are an assumption of science.  However, we know that there are cave-dwelling creatures that never evolved eyes, thus they cannot perceive the reality of light.  What would make us so sure that we have the adequate senses to understand all of reality?

Plantinga’s lines of argument endorse something he calls Augustinian Science.  While this is a complicated subject in itself, the thrust of the argument is this: anytime you do science you assume certain things about reality.  For Christians, we should have no problem assuming that God exists.  This doesn’t mean that we should freely invoke God anytime a scientific problem comes up, but it does it mean that we can be more consistent when we trust our senses and our minds.

Is this a perfect solution?  Honestly, this isn’t even a complete presentation.  Nonetheless, it is a step in the right direction.  If we want to keep the younger generation, than we can drop the whole “creation versus evolution” framework that young earth creationistism has set up.  Equally, we can avoid the “science versus religion” framework that atheists seem to pigeon hole us in.

Plantinga’s approach, in my opinion, satisfies both requirements.  It isn’t dogmatically tied to a particular interpretation of Genesis 1-11.  Furthermore, it reminds full-blown atheists that they have deep seated assumptions about science, reality, and what philosophers call metaphysics.  It deals with the whole faith versus science issue where the problem where the actual problem lies: philosophical assumptions about knowledge and reality.

Maybe we can give young people a bit more intellectual credit and assume that they can sort it out.

In a recent interview, Clint Eastwood spoke on his opinions on gay marriage.  He said we have more important things to talk about.  I like his sentiments on that political football.  I’d like to extend them to the recent Bill Nye the Science guy comment about evolution.

Bill Nye recently posted a  short video on creationism in America.  He later posted a follow up to defend his statements.  This  created a lot of inflamed responses from the creationists wings of Christianity.  Particularly Worldview Everlasting’s recent youtube response.  Jonathan Fisk, host of Worldview Everlasting, is evidently a young earth creationist (YEC).  So what do we make of this pair of dueling internet memes?

The first issue is whether or not Bill Nye is attacking religion.  I’d let the reader watch the two videos and ask yourself this: can you tell Bill Nye’s religious views are?  I honestly could not.  Bill Nye might be as a mad dog of an atheist as Hitchens.  If he was, he showed remarkable restraint.  There was no accusation that religious people inherently are destructive.  He did not broad brush Christians with fringe, cultish, wackos.  He did not make a mockumentary about religious people.  He did not make an asinine expose based on a flat-out lies.  In fact, he kept a laser beam focus on what he discussed.  It’s down to a few points:

  1. It is ironic that creationism is so popular in a technologically advanced society.
  2. If part of the population does not believe in evolution, it holds society back as a whole.
  3. Belief in creationism faces a lot of problems, such as the fossil record and star distance.
  4. Children should not learn creationism because we need scientifically literate voters.

In his follow up CNN video, Nye clarified himself.  He’s really not out to get at anyone’s religion.  He thinks that it is important to believe evolution, because that’s important for a democratic society.

Now, let’s move on the Pastor Jonathan Fisk’s response.  First, let me note this was an 18 minute video response to a two minute promotional video.  That alone should raise some eyebrows, but it does not mean that his response is off.  His youtube fans have said that he understood Bill Nye correctly.  Did he?  For sake of brevity, I’m choosing only a few points to respond to.

At his opening, Jonathan Fisk misinterprets Bill Nye.  Bill Nye says that a denial of evolution is unique to the United States and then says that we are most technologically advanced nation.  Fisk jumps at the word “unique” and charges Bill Nye with a factual error.  He continues to argue that the point about technology has no logical relation.  This is unfair, uncharitable and nit-picky.  The principle of charity -which says you must interpret the opposition’s arguments in the most generous way possible- dictates that Bill Nye probably did not mean that only Americans deny evolution.  I think he probably means that when compared to other first world countries, this is the only one where it so endemic.  Secondly, the issue of technology is part of the problem that Bill Nye wishes to discuss.  He probably feels it is ironic.  That interpretation of Bill Nye’s opening statements is more charitable than Fisk’s video.  The beginning isn’t the only time that Jonathan Fisk violates the principle of charity.  He unfairly presents Bill Nye’s comments about tectonic plates as well.

About three minutes into his response, Jonathan Fisk asserts that the study of science has roots in Christianity.  After all, Christians believed that God created a regularity in nature.  Monks began to look closely at the natural world for that reason.  Thus, QED, the intellectual foundation of science owes more to Christianity than Bill Nye realizes.  After all, who founded the first hospitals?  Bill Nye should not act that Christians contributed nothing to western civilization.  Atheists do not own science.  However, Bill Nye never discussed whether atheists or Christians owned science.  He never asserted that Christians did not contribute to western civilization.  He never discussed the historical and intellectual foundations of science.  He never brought up the metaphysical questions of “why is the universe ordered?”  This makes Jonathan Fisk’s statements completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Reverend Fisk did interpret Bill Nye correctly on at at least one point.  Bill Nye said that if you do not believe in evolution, your world becomes overly complicated.  One example he gave was the age of stars and the star distance problem.  For anyone who is unfamiliar with this, the argument is like this: light travels at a constant speed.  We measure the distance of stars by light-years.  We observe stars that are greater than six-thousand light-years away, therefore the Universe must be older than six thousand years.  Additionally, a star’s life cycle lasts billions of years.  We observe stars that are different stages in this dramatically long life cycle.

Fisk’s response is this:

I’ve never been able to wrap my head around this one: that atheists can’t believe … that God created a star that’s halfway burned…  That light could only start where that star is.  He couldn’t also just make light where earth is, from the star.

This is a common creationist response.  God created a half-way burned star, and created some light-on-its-way from the star.  This additional theory is what what overcomes the star distance problem for the creationist theory.

It’s interesting to note that even Answers in Genesis does not endorse this response.  But more to point consider this: what evidence is there that God created light-on-its-way?  Sure, I can imagine that God did that, but that is not the same as saying that he did.  Is there a verse somewhere in Genesis 1-11 that covers that?  Is there some kind of empirical data that would lead us to believe that that?  Did the apostle Paul cover it in his letter to the Ephesians?  In other words, is there any reason to believe that light was created between earth and a distant star other than young earth creationism?

For all of his sneering at Bill Nye’s poor logic, I think it is fair to point out ad hoc reasoning here.  Ad Hoc translates “add this” from Latin.  Basically, if your theory (in this case, Young Earth Creationism) is in trouble, you simply imagine another theory and “add this” to tape over an obvious problem.  The geocentric astronomers appealed to ad hoc reasoning too.  They believed that everything in the sky moved in perfect circles around earth.  However, they observed a problem: Mars and the other planets appeared to move back and forth.  So they ad hoc‘ed epicycles: That is, the planets must move in circles around earth, and then smaller circles too.  Thus, the problem was overcome.

Ad hoc reasoning isn’t always bad, but using it too much is like plugging so many corks into a leaky boat.  Eventually, you realize that you’d feel safer if you get into the less ad hoc boat.  I do not know if Reverend Fisk realizes how bad light-on-its-way makes young earth creationism look.

This isn’t to say that everything Bill Nye said is beyond question.  How important is evolution for a voting populace?  Some important political issues in our time are immigration, bank regulations, free-speech in a digital age, student debts, and healthcare.  It is not clear to me, at all, how one’s belief or disbelief in evolution affects an opinion on any of those important matters.  Additionally, Bill Nye believes if you don’t believe in evolution, you can’t do any other science either -espeically practical things like medicine and engineering.  This also not clear to me.  It seems to me that you could be a genius at architecture and be rather clueless about evolution.  Medical research is probably a lot closer to evolutionary biology.  Yet even here, I think doctor could be theoretically inconsistent, but practically a good physician.  I don’t care if my doctor believes the earth is six thousand years old.  I care that he prescribes the right medicine with some decent bedside manner.

Interestingly, I feel that both Nye and Reverend Fisk are showing their tendency to generalize.  Nye equates a belief in evolution with upright citizenship in a democratic republic.  Fisk equates young earth creationism with all of Christianity.

I cannot say much for Nye on this, but in regards to Fisk I’ll say this: I suspect he realizes that he does not speak for all Christians.  I suspect that he realizes that his views aren’t a majority.  Fisk might tow the line for the LCMS, but he probably doesn’t even speak for all of Lutheranism.

In this brings me back to Clint Eastwood.  There’s a lot of things Christians can get passionate about.  There are a lot of things that are important to discuss, explore, and to do.  When it comes to science and faith, issues such as NOMA, Augustinian Science, or that razor thin line between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism are all worthy points of discussion.

YEC, however, is no hill to die on.  Like Clint Eastwood said, we got more important things to talk about.

Throughout blog, I have deliberately avoided addressing apologetics, espeically when it comes to atheism.  Atheism v Christianity apologetics oftens turn into some variation of the scientific arguments for design, creation, or whatever.  This is what what I mean, by “science apologetics” -defending or maligning Christianity via science.  This does not grab my attention anymore.  I was not excited, or interested, when the so-called “new atheists” starting publishing.  Some of Christopher Hitchen’s blunders made me laugh.  Ricky Gervais is a comedian not a philosopher.    It was pretty cool when Antony Flew became deist.  Yet that’s an exception.  Basically, I simply don’t think that science apologetics get very far -for athiest or Christians.  Here’s why:

An honest examination of science and religious faith can be found here.  It is written by a blogger named Dan McCormick – a “meta-scientist” who teeters on metaphysics (more on that later).  At the beginning of his essay, he makes a few statements of principle.  If I understand him correctly, these are assertions about epistemology -which is a word philosopher’s use about “how you know things.”

  1. You can’t tell anything about anyone based on what they don’t believe.
  2. In the absence of direct evidence, non-belief needs no justification.
  3. Science makes many mistakes, but the scientific method is the best way to understand reality.
  4. It is unlikely that the Universe had a beginning (i.e. it is perpetual, though it changes in form).  This is the prevailing view of the scientific community.

Now, number 1 I think I can agree to, but I’m not sure why it is listed here.  Number 4 is not something I am qualified to comment on and is not relevant to subject at hand.  Number 2 I think depends on number 3.

Number 3 is the point of discussion here.  Here it is, put very simply.

3.  The scientific method is the best way to understand reality.

You must forgive me for adding philosophical language here.  One term I have used already: epistemology.  If you have ever watch a court drama, gone to a doctor for illness, or watched mythbusters, you’ve been concerned about epistemology.  Epistemology is about “how do we know things.”  If you sick, you go to a doctor and he uses a series of tests, instruments, etc to know if you are sick and to know what kind of sickness you have.  If you went to a witch doctor in the amazon, they would consult chickens to know what kind of sickness you have.  That’s weird to us, and I don’t endorse it, but our methods sound just as weird to them.

The second term is metaphysics.  Metaphysics is all about “what is real” or “what is reality.”  In 8th grade science classes, we were taught that all reality was reducible to atoms.  Of course, string theory is also popular.  Metaphysics also covers questions like “do we have soul that we can’t touch, see, or feel?”  Another example is, “did the universe begin to exist, how will it end?”  or ” why do scientific laws always stay the same, and never change?”

Most importantly, metaphysics asks, “Does a god exist?”

With those two philosophical terms in mind, here is principle 3 again.

3. The scientific method [epistemology] is the best way to understand reality [metaphysics].

The scientific method is an epistemology and reality is metaphysics.

Now, this statement should be fairly easy to understand.  There is a hidden implication.  It is this hidden assertion that is important to Christians and the whole project of science apologetics.  If we take Dan’s third premise here, we could probably see that it is also saying this:

3a. All of metaphysics (reality) can be understood by the scientific method (epistemology).

3a here is just simply rephrasing of 3.  Though there is some ambiguity, with the word “best.”  Now, I will invite anyone who believes in premise 3 to correct me if I have misunderstood it.  Feel free to comment.

When we talk about Metaphysics here, we are not simply talking about stuff we already know.  Such as the orbit of earth, the boiling point of water, or the formation of the Hawaiian islands.  We are talking about anything we might know as well.  Such as, how to cure cancer or travel faster than the speed of light.  We are talking about any question that humans ask.

When we are talking about the scientific method, we are talking about a very purist, and objective, form of knowledge.  We do not know we love our friends, significant others, or family by the scientific method.  We do not know that music is delightful by the scientific method.  These are subjective and relational ways of knowing.  That isn’t to say that the scientific method isn’t important.  It is just different.

Most importantly though, the scientific method depends fully on the human intellect, which is good.  It also assumes that there are no limits to what the human intellect can understand, which is unproven.

Therefore, 3a is really is saying something like “All of metaphysics (reality) can be completely understood by the human mind (3b)”

The question “Does a god exist?” is part of metaphysics, but Christians don’t  assert “a god.”  We assert something very specific.  After all, “a god” can be the a Greek anthropomorphic superman, or a pantheistic force, or the source of all spirituality according to Opera or Unitarians.

No, Christians never assert “a god.”  We always assert, “the God” or “our God.”  We mean something specific.  We mean the Trinity (not modalism), the Incarnation of Jesus, we certainly mean monotheism, and  importantly “that which is necessarily beyond the scope of objective human knowledge.”  So strong was this in Christian tradition, that it produced via negativa:  Our God can’t be completely described in human language, but we do the best we can anyway.  Sure, there may be “a god” that can be discovered by the scientific method, but this is not Our God -the God Christians worship.

Now let’s go back to the implication of Dan’s premise.

3a. All of metaphysics (reality) can be understood by the scientific method (epistemology).

The question of “whether a god exists” is part of metaphysics.  So it means this:

3c. Whether or not a god exists can be answered by the scientific method.

This premise is at the heart of science apologetics.  If you want to follow this premise, then I think that Dan’s blog post is a great example of where you will get.  He is not atheist in the sense that Hitchens or Dawkins is.  He is a certain kind of pantheist.  There are probably many scientists who disagree with him, and they have scientific method to discuss it.

If a Christians were to do science apologetics, we could accept 3c, but why?  Christians are not concerned about “a god of some kind or another.”  We have certain creeds and confessions.  So if we want to be science apologists, then we commit to a this implication of premise 3.

3d. Whether or not the Christian God exists can be answered by the scientific method.

This statement, though, is false.  Part of what we mean by “the Christian God” is a being that can not be understood by the scientific method!  Christians then, cannot accept “The scientific method is the best way to understand reality” when that reality refers to our God.  It is the wrong tool.  We might as well say, “there is no evidence for Jupiter in any of the microscopes we use.”

This is why I am bored and tired of science apologetics.  Christians have great, and intellectually interesting arguments for design, first causes, and so forth.  However, they are only of value after you are Christian.  Ricky Gervais has wisely said that there is no scientific evidence that a god exists.  Yet, this a moot point because any god that could  be fully understood via science is not the God that Christians care about (please stick to comedy, Ricky).  There are many candid scientists like Dan (whose blog helped inspire this one), who look for “a god” and see him through science.  I admit that this is very fascinating.  It is a great third way, and I appreciate an honest, different perspective.  This pantheism, however, is not Christianity and no one is claiming that it is.

I am bored with science apologetics and apathetic to the Christianity v atheism debates.  What does that mean about Ricky Gervais, Dawkins and Hitchens?  Let them bark and complain all they like.  When they say, “there is no scientific evidence for a god.”  Their complaint is with some other hypothetical deity.

So what about you?  Are you bored with science apologetics?  Please subscribe and follow the comments.  Repost after you do so.