Scientific Truth?

A new post at the Discovery Institute's Evolution News deals with the total nonreality of some evolutionists and the warping of truth or ignorance of it. Consider:

We are often told that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." The statement was first made in 1973 by neo-Darwinist Theodosius Dobzhansky. (Neo-Darwinism is the view that evolution is due to the natural selection of variations that originate as gene mutations.) Dobzhansky's statement is false. Nevertheless, it has become the majority opinion ("consensus") of the scientific establishment. Sometimes, it is carried to absurd extremes.

For example, in a blog post last week defending that reliability of "scientific consensus," theoretical astrophysicist Ethan Siegel wrote:

[E]volution was the consensus position that led to the discovery of genetics...

What a hoot! The truth is that Gregor Mendel discovered genetics with no help from evolution. Mendel published his theory…

For too many people truth is "what I say," as if they are the final authority in life. What people believe to be true, and what is reality are two different things.

1. Truth corresponds to reality. This would be seen when a cashier hands you the wrong change. Immediately people will say, "Wait a minute. This is not the correct change." No theories allowed here; it is reality.


2. Truth is fact. An example of this would be 1+1=2. No theory really needed. Someone may explain it away, but 1 $(USA) plus 1 $(USA) does equal 2 $(USA).

An article on truth.

Christian and non-Christians understand this.

1. "If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain


2. "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." Aldous Huxley, Complete Essays 2, 1926-29


3. "In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell


4. "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." G. K. Chesterton


5. "The truth is, of course, that the curtness of the Ten Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion, but, on the contrary, of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted: precisely because most things are permitted, and only a few things are forbidden." G. K. Chesterton


6. "Never speak against the truth, but be ashamed of your ignorance." (Sirach 4:25 NRSVA)


7. "A reliable witness always tells the truth, but an unreliable one tells nothing but lies." (Proverbs 14:5 GNB)

The above article explores what is true. It is a good read for sure. Check out the facts before you believe something.

Let us not be led away by "experts," government, salespeople, or someone we know.

Faith and Science

An article on evolution news refers to an interview of Dr. Francis Collins. After this article appeared, Jerry Coyne, an evangelistic atheist responded.



I have much respect for Dr. Collins and his scientific achievements, but I don't respect his view of Christianity. This article, however, points out some of the faulty thinking of the atheist, or at least Coyne.

National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins, who is a devout Christian, did an interview recently with National Geographic about his faith and his science. Predictably, Jerry Coyne, an atheist biologist from the University of Chicago, took exception to some of Collins's answers about the compatibility of faith in God and science.

Collins:

[Question asked of Collins] Are science and religion compatible?

I am privileged to be somebody who tries to understand nature using the tools of science. But it is also clear that there are some really important questions that science cannot really answer, such as: Why is there something instead of nothing? Why are we here? In those domains I have found that faith provides a better path to answers. I find it oddly anachronistic that in today's culture there seems to be a widespread presumption that scientific and spiritual views are incompatible.

Coyne:

Here he's espousing the NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) reconciliation rather than the "god-of-the-gaps" reconciliation (but see below), but note that what he's saying is that science and religion are not compatible but complementary. I hate having to address this issue yet again, but I have no choice.

First, science can answer, at least in principle, those hard questions; it's just that Collins and his fellow believers don't like the answers. Why are we here? Because of the Big Bang, the laws of physics, and evolution.

Coyne misunderstands the…

Truly an interesting article to read not only for the points brought out in the article but also some insight in the overzealous, misinformed thinking of an atheist.