Articles
Science (Facts) vs. Religion (Myths)
In the media, academia and the political realm, the debate between creationism and naturalism is consistently framed as science/fact vs. religion/myth. This is a deliberate, concerted effort to pigeonhole or marginalize religion so as to bar it from the public arena.
Religion – or more accurately belief in God as Creator – is maligned as anti-science. The Bible is ridiculed as ignorant mythology, written by people who did not know the physical processes by which the universe operates. Consequently, things they did not understand were ascribed to the working of the “gods.”
But the modern mind has anointed science as savior and tossed the Bible on the burn pile. And this is not merely some academic discussion: the reality of prejudice and contempt toward those who believe the Bible and base their worldview upon it is displayed across the board.
This is simply intellectual snobbery and false accusation. Creationists are branded as being “anti-science,” and critics sarcastically ask if they are ready to give up their computers, medical treatments, jet travel, etc. – as if belief in Darwinism has anything to do with the physical properties all of us can see, test and utilize. Creationists/Christians have no problem working for NASA, the CDC, Microsoft, Boeing or any other company on the cutting edge of technology. Christians welcome new discoveries and technological advancement that can ease the effects of sin in the world.
Christians believe in science, but they emphatically reject the philosophy of atheistic naturalism because it is not supported by science. Christians accept scientifically sound evidence, including microevolution which can be reproduced in a laboratory and witnessed in nature. Christians do not hide from scientific facts behind the Bible. On the contrary, they believe the facts of physics, astronomy, biology, geology and other disciplines best fit the Biblical model of orderly creation by a divine intelligence.
“Many people, including many … scientists, just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature. They don’t want a supernatural being to affect nature, no matter how brief or constructive the interaction may have been. In other words … they bring an a priori philosophical commitment to their science that restricts what kinds of explanations they will accept about the physical world” (Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, 243).
