Posted on 12/19/2004 5:19:27 PM PST by bondserv
Summary: In an attempt to account for the origin of modern science, I will argue that the Judeo-Christian world view played a crucial role in this birth. I will cite four lines of evidence to support this hypothesis and respond to objections at the appropriate places.
Acknowledgement: Several points in the following essays are indebted to Stanley Jaki's, "Science and Creation: From eternal cycles to an oscillating universe."
Points of clarification:
1. It was not my intention that this article would convince those highly skeptical of this hypothesis (for those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still). Instead, I intend to simply clarify why it is that one might rationally think the Judeo-Christian world view was important, even crucial, in the birth of science.
2. I am not claiming that Christianity was sufficient for the birth of science. Other important ingredients stemmed from Greek philosophy and mathematics and various technical achievements associated with building and designing things.
3. I am not claiming that one must be a Christian to be a "good scientist." My focus is on history. The current relationship between Christianity and Science can be addressed in another article.
--snip--
Whenever one is educated about history, some paradigm is usually assumed to interpret all the facts in the context of a coherent pattern. As a student of the public schools and public universities, I was taught about the history of science in the light of the notion that there has always been warfare between science and Christianity.
The warfare myth is very popular and very powerful. It is popular because it seems to be substantiated today. We often hear certain scientists making metaphysical claims such as "the Universe is all that exists." We also hear religious leaders making scientific claims such as "evolution is not true." It's as if the religious leaders think they have the authority to make scientific judgments and scientific leaders think they have the authority to make religious/metaphysical judgments. The warfare myth is clearly supported by these dynamics, as it is if there are two opposing camps firing back at each other.
The myth is also very powerful. As one who is both a Christian and a scientist, I can see this from both sides. As a Christian, there are many fellow Christians who look upon my science with suspicion. How can I be a Christian yet believe in evolution? How can I be a Christian yet focus so much attention on something that doesn't seem directly related to the faith? As a scientist, there are many fellow scientists who look upon my Christianity with suspicion. How can I be a scientist yet believe Jesus bodily rose from the dead? How can I be a scientist yet focus too much attention on things that depend on faith? As many Christians who are scientists will tell you, they are often caught between a rock and a hard place.
So what is a Christian scientist (not to be confused with the religion of Christian Science) to do? Unfortunately, many opt for a perspective that tacitly reinforces the warfare myth. They buy into the warfare myth in the sense that science and Christianity are two camps that have little to say to each other. That is, they may not take part in the warfare, but they buy peace simply by cutting off meaningful dialog between the two camps. It's a mindset that basically says, "Look, since we can't talk to each other without fighting, let's not talk to each other." Thus, the Christian scientist often leads two lives - as a scientist, she is little more than a moral Naturalist and as a Christian, she keeps her science to herself.
Ping for opinions on topic.
There is much more information at the website of origin! Take some time if you are interested in this topic.
Agriculture, gunpowder, aqueducts, astronomy, mathematics, and other systems, where all invented thousands of years before Christ.
It is true, though, that modern science as we know it today arose in Venice during the Italian Renaissance.
I'm just curious. Who are born-again Christian Nobel prize-winners?
Agriculture, gunpowder, aqueducts, astronomy, mathematics, and other systems, where all invented thousands of years before Christ.
There is a well written compilation of Christian Scientists here.
Sorry, but it's true.
Very good! Thank you. Great info.
Small problem with the hypothesis that science was born under Christinaity: Aristarchos of Samos died around 230 BC, well before Christianity. He used the scientific method to not onl determine a mystery regarding the length of shados cast by the sun at different latitudes, he also calculated the Earth's diameter to reasonable accuracy. The basic principles of science were in place well before 1 AD.
Since the defeat of Nazism, evolutionists have been at pains to conceal the obvious connection between Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest" and Hitler's ideology of a death-struggle between superior and inferior races. Their chief tactic: to claim that Hitler's "social Darwinism" was a perversion of "true" Darwinism. But in this stupendous work of intellectual history, Richard Weikart conclusively proves that Hitler's views were not only based firmly on core Darwinian principles, but widely echoed by leading Darwinist scientists, philosophers, and ethicists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries -- and that it was only after worldwide revulsion at the horrors of the Holocaust that such views disappeared from the Darwinist "mainstream."
With impeccable documentation, Weikart demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers of the pre-Hitler era believed -- and celebrated the fact -- that Darwinism overturned traditional Christian ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life. In its place, they exalted evolutionary "fitness" (especially in terms of intelligence and health) as the highest arbiter of morality. Thus, whatever "improves" the race by favoring the strong and eliminating the weak is justified morally -- and this included not only euthanasia and abortion for certain groups, but even infanticide and genocide, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis.
A few of Weikart's astounding revelations:
"The philosophy that fueled German militarism and Hitlerism is taught as fact in every American public school, with no disagreement allowed. Every parent ought to know this story, which Weikart persuasively explains." -- PHILLIP JOHNSON, author of Darwin on Trial
"Outstanding . . . shows in sober and convincing detail how Darwinist thinkers in Germany had developed an amoral attitude to human society by the time of the First World War, in which the supposed good of the race was applied as the sole criterion of public policy and 'racial hygiene.' Without over- simplifying the lines that connected this body of thought to Hitler, he demonstrates with chilling clarity how policies such as infanticide, assisted suicide, marriage prohibitions and much else were being proposed for those considered racially or eugenically inferior by a variety of Darwinist writers and scientists, providing Hitler and the Nazis with a scientific justification for the policies they pursued once they came to power." -- Richard Evans, author of The Coming of the Third Reich
"If you think moral issues like infanticide, assisted suicide, and tampering with human genes are new, read this book. It draws a clear and chilling picture of the way Darwinian naturalism led German thinkers to treat human life as raw materials to be manipulated in order to advance the course of evolution. The ethics of Hitler's Germany were not reactionary; they were very much 'cutting edge' and in line with the scientific understanding of the day. Weikart's implicit warning is that as long as the same assumption of Darwinian naturalism reigns in educated circles in our own day, it may well lead to similar practices." -- NANCY PEARCEY, author of Total Truth
Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas
Why do well-educated antiwar activists argue that the U.S. government orchestrated the September 11 attacks, and is on the way to replicating the horrors of Nazi Germany? How can Al Gore really believe that cars pose "a mortal threat to the security of every nations"? How can Yale professor Lamont Cole assert with a straight face that "to feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem"? Why does the Princeton professor known as the father of the animal rights movement object to humans eating animals but not to humans having sex with them -- and why does PETA defend that position?
It is startling how many Americans -- and particularly how many among the Leftist media, academic, and political elites -- fall for cockamamie ideas that a child can see through. The trouble is, their lies become institutionalized as truth, and we all suffer as a result. Why are liberals such easy prey for stupid ideas? Daniel J. Flynn reveals the answer in Intellectual Morons.
Flynn, author of Why the Left Hates America, shows how people (mostly Leftists, but also a few on the Right) can be so blinded to reality by the causes they serve that they espouse bizarre, sometimes ridiculous, and often dangerous positions. Even the most influential social movements have spawned ideologues who don't care whether an idea is good or bad, true or false -- but only whether it can serve their cause.
In Intellectual Morons, Flynn catalogues an amazing number of jaw- dropping lapses in common sense from even our most celebrated liberal opinion leaders. This book is a welcome reality check for the glaring excesses of what passes today for intellectual analysis among Leftists.
Stupid ideas put forth by liars, hypocrites, and perverts - - and their harmful consequences:
Those without "coming soon" next to their name have a write up on their life and discoveries.
Hugh of St. Victor c. 1096 - 1141.
Robert Grosseteste c. 1168 - 1253.
Roger Bacon 1214 - 1294
William of Ockham: coming soon.
Nicholas of Oresme: coming soon.
Leonardo da Vinci: coming soon.
Sir Francis Bacon 1561 - 1626
Johannes Kepler 1571 - 1630
Galileo Galilei 1564 - 1642
Blaise Pascal 1623 - 1662
William Harvey: coming soon.
Robert Boyle 1627 - 1691
Sir Isaac Newton 1642 - 1727: coming soon.
Antony van Leeuwenhoek 1632 - 1723
Carolus Linnaeus 1707 - 1778
William Herschel 1738 - 1822
John Herschel 1792 - 1871
Georges Cuvier: coming soon.
Samuel F. B. Morse 1791 - 1872
Michael Faraday 1791 - 1867
Charles Babbage 1791 - 1871
James Prescott Joule 1818 - 1889
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin 1824 - 1907
James Clerk Maxwell 1831 - 1879
John Napier 1550 - 1617
Leonhard Euler 1707 - 1783
Bernhard Riemann 1826 - 1866
Gregor Mendel 1822 - 1884
Louis Pasteur 1822 - 1895
Joseph Lister: coming soon.
Henrietta Swan Leavitt 1868 - 1921
George Washington Carver 1864 - 1943
Wernher von Braun 1912 - 1977
James Irwin 1930 - 1991
> I believe your question will be aptly answered here.
I gotta admit... that is one remarkably funny website. Either it's high parody... or they actually believe their own BS, which is even funnier. Their idea of modern "Creation Scientists" are Werner von Braun and James Irwin.... neither of which even remotely approached the fields of biology. Irwin wasn't even a scientist.
As I said... high comedy!
> A few of Weikart's astounding revelations:
Does he reveal the fact that Hitler was a creationist?
No?
I'm astounded.
Why muddle a good religious rant with nasty little facts...
Find one thing you slightly disagree with and broad brush the rest with contempt despite the overwhelming evidence. Sounds exactly like Jesse Jackson.
Irwin was an Astronaut who was assigned to do scientific discovery on the moon, by the way. And Rush Limbaugh is an overblown entertainment figure.
Great post.
There is no actual conflict between scientific truth and method and Christian faith as they inhabit two entirely seperate realms.
Probably the same place as born-again Christian Nobel prize judges.
Any time.
There is some good history on those pages.
> Find one thing you slightly disagree with and broad brush the rest with contempt despite the overwhelming evidence.
Hardly "one thing." When someone wishes to suggest that a modern science is bunk, and that a modern fairy tale is actually science... refences people who have been dead for hundreds of years is not generally a good start. And then when the only reasonably modern people put up in support of said fairy tale are unrelated to the field... well, it speaks to either parody or a subconscious admission that the position is without merit.
If you want to suggest that Darwinian Evolution is something that scientists don't support... it's the *height* of ridiculousness to bring up scientists who died *before* the concept was first raised. it'd be like opposing Relativity and using Kepler and Newton as your appeals-to-authority.
But by all means, keep posting this stuff. It's durn funny!
> Irwin was an Astronaut who was assigned to do scientific discovery on the moon, by the way.
Gosh, and how much of that science was biology, do you think? Was he perhaps sent out to dig up fossil unicorns?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.