[Warning: This post is a Beagle’s Bark. Follow the link to see what that means.]
Today’s post is a fill-in-the-blank exercise. See if you can complete these sentences that I lifted from two very earnest websites.
Are these Scripture verses “mere poetry”? Are they the silly myths of ancient, “primitive” peoples? The Bible nowhere teaches the modern theory that _______________.
_______________ must bring their atheistic assumptions with them when they come to God’s Word. A man stranded on an island with only a Bible could never dream up such things.
…modern science has documented for us ________ (yet have done an equally remarkable job in keeping these important facts out of our educational system),
The astute reader probably filled in those blanks with “man evolved from apes,” “Evolutionists” and “that macro-evolution has not taken place” or something along those lines.
The astute reader would be wrong.
The correct quotations are:
Are these Scripture verses “mere poetry”? Are they the silly myths of ancient, “primitive” peoples? The Bible nowhere teaches the modern theory that the earth is in motion around the sun.
Christian heliocentrists, like “christian” evolutionists, must bring their atheistic assumptions with them when they come to God’s Word. A man stranded on an island with only a Bible could never dream up such things.
…modern science has documented for us in bold fashion that the Earth is motionless in space and occupies the center of the universe (yet have done an equally remarkable job in keeping these important facts out of our educational system)
Yes, folks, the geocentric movement is alive and well. But none of my readers believe in geocentrism, so why did I bring it up?
I am hoping that my readers will see the dangers of using the above pattern of argument in their own consideration of science.
I am particularly hoping that they will avoid pointing fingers at “atheistic assumptions” and invoking conspiracy theories when evaluating the conclusions of mainstream science. A given scientist may or may not be biased, but let’s remember that there have been many hundreds of years of theological assumptions and Church conspiracy.
And the conspiracy by the conservative factions of the church has been much harsher. As far as I know, no scientist has ever sought to torture or kill a Christian simply because the Christian was a heliocentrist. But certain branches of the Church have a long history of persecuting scientists for views that were later proven correct.
In light of the Church’s bloody history what would be an appropriate attitude for Christians today?
I suggest that at a minimum an attitude of humility is in order.
If you have claimed that “what we see could not possibly have arisen by chance” and your science-minded friend says, “On the contrary, here’s a way it might have happened,” stop and listen to what he has to say. With a receptive mind.
If you have claimed that “morality is incompatible with evolution and must have been implanted by a Creator” and your friend suggests, “Why don’t you study what scientists in the field say before you decide it’s impossible,” take him up on it.
Science has a lot to offer. Why not listen to what it can teach us?