Thursday, March 5, 2015

Fast Facts on The War on Science

  • The March 2015 issue of National Geographic has a cover story titled, “The War On Science”. In the story Creationists and advocates of Intelligent Design are cited as examples of groups that are supposedly at war with science.
  • Describing Creationists and I.D. proponents as being at war with science, however, is a gross caricature. Both of these groups have a profound appreciation for science.
  • The problem with this article is that National Geographic is defining “science” in such a way that they equate it with Naturalistic-Darwinian evolution. Thus, if you disagree with Naturalistic-Darwinian evolution, you are anti-science.
  • The truth, however, is one doesn’t need to embrace Naturalistic-Darwinian evolution to have a genuine respect for science or to be an accomplished scientist. This is evidenced by the reality of numerous prominent scientists throughout history who believed in Divine creation (ex. Pasteur, Mendel, Linnaeus). 
  • True science examines evidence through observation and experimentation; and Creationists and I.D. advocates have the same scientific evidence as Naturalistic-Darwinian evolutionists.
  • The real issue is not the evidence, but how you interpret the evidence. Evidence itself is neutral, but we must recognize that our interpretations of the evidence are not.
  • Everyone interprets evidence through a particular worldview. National Geographic is philosophically committed to a Naturalistic-Darwinian worldview that cannot allow for the possibility of a Divine Designer.
  • In claiming their philosophical worldview as “science”, National Geographic confuses the public into thinking that Creationists and I.D. proponents are at war with science. This is simply untrue and does a disservice to legitimate scientific inquiry and debate.
  • The question that National Geographic should be asking if they are genuinely concerned with the pursuit of true knowledge is this, “Which philosophical worldview makes the most sense in light of the observable scientific evidence?”

No comments: