Feed on
Posts
Comments
-->

Over in the USA Today, BioLogos bigwigs Giberson and Falk continue their ongoing mission to debase science. Their recipe for the “compatibility” of science and religion consists of two teeny-weeny modifications to the scientific method:

1. Observation is not a reliable way of gathering data:

Putting modern scientific ideas into [the Bible] distorts the meaning of the text, which is clearly about God’s faithful and caring relation to the world, not the details of how that world came to be.

See, even though the very first chapter gives a somewhat explicit description of, well, how the world came to be, that’s “clearly” not what the book’s about, and “clearly” you’re supposed to ignore that part. (Many of the other parts are “clearly” 100% true, of course. Which parts? I can’t believe you’d even ask such an impertinent question! Clearly you have no future as a BioLogos Scientist.)

2. Only test some of your hypotheses:

What we learn from science cannot threaten our belief in God as the creator. If God created the universe in a Big Bang 15 billion years ago, guided its development with elegant mathematical laws so that eventually there would be big-brained mammals exploring things such as beauty, morality and truth, then let us celebrate that idea, not reject it.

Can what we learn from science threaten our beliefs in human parthenogenesis, resurrection, non-conservation of bread and fish, and spontaneous heaven-ascension?

The article doesn’t say, but based on my experiences with BioLogos, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that “clearly” it cannot. Praise Jesus science!

Share

One Response to “We Believe in Science — and We Don’t”

  1. [...] study of reality as it is, the scientific endeavour to expand human knowledge. If there’s one thing I believe in, it’s the scientific [...]

Leave a Reply