Don't Give Up on Science!

In an article entitled "Stop Believing in Science" journalist Daniel Greenfield states, "Science is not a religion. It doesn’t offer virtue or certainty."

The sciences are not the problem. They seek confirmed data and often that takes many years to establish. The trouble comes when the authority of "science" is claimed by ideologues and politicians.

This journalist's facts are wrong from the first paragraph. The forebears of the sciences were rulers and their royal priests, not alchemists and astrologers. Among the royal priests were pioneers of physics, geometry, medicine, and animal husbandry. By 4245 BC, the priests of the Upper Nile had established a calendar based on the appearance of Sirius. Apparently, they had been tracking this star and connecting it to seasonal impacts on agriculture for thousands of years. The priest Manetho reported in his history (c. 241 BC) that Nilotic Africans had been “star-gazing” as early as 40,000 years ago.

Greenfield writes, "Politicized science does not seek to learn, but to affirm the cultural convictions of its class. It is not searching for the truth, because it already knows it. Its only purpose is to uphold the ruling class."

Clearly, Daniel Greenfield is not describing science, an empirical approach based on observations that can present reliable data. He is describing scientism. His vitriol equals that of those who arrogantly claim science as their highest authority. The sciences have brought advances to the benefit of humans throughout history. Don't give up on science.


Related reading: Ancient Wisdom, Science and Technology; The Arrogance of Scientism; Pursuing Truth as Persons of Faith; Science and Miracles; The Bible and Science; The Relation of Faith and Science; Reading the Bible as a Christian; Science and Religion in a Time of Plague

Reading the Bible as a Christian

Map shows the dispersion of the R1b people out of Africa.

Alice C. Linsley

This is the third installment in a series of articles of the Bible and Science. In Part 1 we considered this question: If Scripture is reliable and the empirical method is valuable, shouldn't the two work together for those who want to understand the Bible?

It is an error to think that biblical assertions cannot be tested by science. The Bible makes extraordinary assertions that can be found to align with the findings of different fields of science: anthropology, archaeology, astronomy, climate studies, DNA studies, linguistics, etc. In an age when it is generally assumed that the Bible is nonsense, identifying the alignments is an essential task of Christian apologetics.

Approaching the Scriptures with an empirical eye involves noticing details that clarify the context and the meaning. We should note that Nimrod was a Kushite kingdom builder (Genesis 10:8) because this speaks of the Kushite migration out of the Upper Nile Valley, something that has been confirmed by DNA studies of Haplogroup R1b.

Linguists and Bible scholars have noted that many of the roots (radicals) found in the early chapters of Genesis are Nilo-Saharan roots and date to a time when the Sahara was wet. This suggests that Noah, Nimrod’s great grandfather, probably lived in Africa during the time when it was prone to floods. That would make Noah a Proto-Saharan ruler. Interesting information has come forward about Proto-Saharan rulers. They kept royal menageries, and the animals were brought in pairs, a male and a female, in hopes that the species would reproduce.

The anthropological tools of kinship analysis have identified the rulers of Genesis 4, 5, 10, 11, 25 and 36 as historical persons with an authentic marriage and ascendancy pattern. Their kinship pattern is identical to that of Moses’s family. This suggests that Cain, Seth, Lamech, Noah, Methuselah, Abraham, Sheba, Seir the Horite, and Moses share a common ancestral tradition.

Archaeological research reveals that this common ancestral tradition expressed itself in burial practices that suggest the hope of resurrection and immortality. Among those practices are the mummification of rulers, burial in red ochre (an archaic symbol of blood), and monumental tombs and temples with entrances aligned to the rising sun.

In Part 2, we focused on the relation of faith and science, and considered this question: Does faith play a role in scientific research and how Christians interpret data?

There is no doubt that faith informs our worldview, and we filter data through a faith template. We may argue over questions of inerrancy, human agency, seeming contradictions, etc., but most Christians are confident that the Bible has been divinely superintended over the centuries. If we believe that the Bible is divinely superintended, we may trust that the biblical data can stand up to empirical investigation.

Attitude is important when reading the Bible. If we approach the text seeking ammunition to fight for a cause, we will fail to understand the divine message. If we approach in arrogance, we will find nothing of real value. The best stance when approaching the Bible is humble inquiry, as a beggar seeking entrance to the King’s palace.

In this installment, we explore how a Christian should read the Bible in the face of secular challenges.

Focus question: In an age that challenges the assertions of the Christian faith, how should Christians read the Bible?

The short answer is that we should be like the noble Bereans who investigated the Scriptures to see if these claims be true (Acts 17:11). Investigation means digging deep into the text, not reading a commentary on the text. It means questioning the text, not taking it for granted. It means recognizing that the Bible does not answer all questions, only the essential ones. It means making a lifelong pursuit of the mysteries of God that are hidden in Jesus Messiah. True students of the Bible are like scientists for whom every answered question leads to new questions. Discovery leads to further discovery.

Anselm of Canterbury approached truth with the right attitude. He wrote, “For I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe - that unless I believe I shall not understand.”

The Hubris of Scientism

Arguments among Christians arise over a text or a doctrine when people insist that their interpretation alone is the correct one. Such dogmatism is not unique to Christians. We find it among scientists who believe that science alone confirms truth. This “Scientism” was exposed as fraudulent by the late Dr. Austin Hughes in “The Folly of Scientism” (The New Atlantis, Feb. 2012). He wrote:

When I decided on a scientific career, one of the things that appealed to me about science was the modesty of its practitioners. The typical scientist seemed to be a person who knew one small corner of the natural world and knew it very well, better than most other human beings living and better even than most who had ever lived. But outside of their circumscribed areas of expertise, scientists would hesitate to express an authoritative opinion. This attitude was attractive precisely because it stood in sharp contrast to the arrogance of the philosophers of the positivist tradition, who claimed for science and its practitioners a broad authority with which many practicing scientists themselves were uncomfortable.

The temptation to overreach, however, seems increasingly indulged today in discussions about science. Both in the work of professional philosophers and in popular writings by natural scientists, it is frequently claimed that natural science does or soon will constitute the entire domain of truth. And this attitude is becoming more widespread among scientists themselves. All too many of my contemporaries in science have accepted without question the hype that suggests that an advanced degree in some area of natural science confers the ability to pontificate wisely on any and all subjects.

Of course, from the very beginning of the modern scientific enterprise, there have been scientists and philosophers who have been so impressed with the ability of the natural sciences to advance knowledge that they have asserted that these sciences are the only valid way of seeking knowledge in any field. A forthright expression of this viewpoint has been made by the chemist Peter Atkins, who in his 1995 essay “Science as Truth” asserts the “universal competence” of science. This position has been called scientism — a term that was originally intended to be pejorative but has been claimed as a badge of honor by some of its most vocal proponents. In their 2007 book Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized, for example, philosophers James Ladyman, Don Ross, and David Spurrett go so far as to entitle a chapter “In Defense of Scientism.”

Today the challenges to our Christian faith are so great that we can’t be complacent about the claims of Scripture. We must counter ignorance of the text with clear and concise evidence. If a claim is true there will be evidence to that effect. Investigate the claim! We can no longer accept something by faith. We must also confirm it by every possible means, and God will help us in the pursuit of truth.

Christians are to demonstrate that the Bible is more than an account of irrelevant past events. We do this by reading the Bible daily and reflecting on its application. We do this by taking it as our primary authority for faith and practice. If we are to rise to the challenges of secularism and scientism we must also read empirically. That means identifying and verifying the accuracy of biblical data so that the world may know that the supernatural message of the Bible is written everywhere in the natural world (Romans 1:20). As St. Jerome reminds us, “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ!”


Related reading: Reading Genesis as Verifiable History; Always Be Prepared to Give an Answer; Understanding the Science of Biblical Anthropology

Ian Hutchinson: Christian Plasma Scientist

Modern science is already, in a very serious sense, Christian. It germinated in and was nurtured by the Christian philosophy of creation, it was developed and established through the work of largely Christian pioneers, and it continues to draw Christians to its endeavors today.--Ian Hutchinson

Ian Hutchinson

Jesse Pome’ (Grade 8)

Ian Horner Hutchinson was born 7 June, 1951. He is a nuclear engineer and physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He holds an M.A. in Natural Sciences from Cambridge University (1972), and a Ph.D. in Engineering Physics from the Australian National University (1976), where he was a Commonwealth Scholar.

He first became interested in plasma physics as an undergraduate at Cambridge University. In a June 2003 article that appeared in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, he wrote:

"My conversion as an undergraduate was founded on a conviction that the Christian faith made intellectual sense of the world, of history, and of personal experience. For me, despite the expectation of my secular friends, there was no inherent contradiction between a thorough Christian commitment and the pursuit of natural science. That harmony of thought is something I have sought and treasured through my professional life and in my service of God, though it always has not been easily maintained."

To young people interested in science careers, especially to young Christians, Dr. Hutchinson offers this message: "The scorn sometimes heaped on Christians by scientists and by other students is unjustified. There is no inherent incompatibility between science and Christianity. However, there are some interpretations of the Bible as if it were as scientific text book (which it isn't) that science has shown to be mistaken."

Dr. Hutchinson has written extensively about the relationship between science and religion. He authored a book on the philosophy of science in which he argues against scientism-- the view that all real knowledge is knowable by science alone.

Throughout his professional career, Dr. Hutchinson has spoken about science and the Christian faith to university and church groups. At Veritas Forum, he engages students in conversations about modern life and the relevance of Jesus Christ.

At MIT, Dr. Hutchinson founded the Faith of Great Scientists Seminar, which explores how the Christian faith has influenced many scientists throughout history. He has assisted the American Association for the Advancement of Science in their Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion, and he is a Fellow of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA). Here is text of his 2002 address to the American Scientific Affiliation.


Professional Life

Dr. Hutchinson has made a number of important contributions to the fields of nuclear engineering and nuclear physics. His primary research interest is plasma physics, especially the magnetic confinement of plasmas (ionized gases). He and his MIT team designed, built and operate the Alcator C-Mod tokamak, an international facility with one of the earliest tokamaks to be operated outside of the Soviet Union. He directed the facility for 15 years. The magnetically confined plasmas, with temperatures beyond 50 million degrees Celsius, are prototypical of a future fusion reactor.

Dr. Hutchinson did research for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. He returned to MIT in 1983 as a faculty member in the department of Nuclear Engineering Department, and served as the Head of the Department of Nuclear Physics and Engineering from 2003 to 2009.

The second edition of Dr. Hutchinson’s monograph book Principles of Plasma Diagnostics was published by Cambridge University Press in 2002. This book presents a "systematic introduction to the physics behind measurements on plasmas. It develops from first principles the concepts needed to plan, execute, and interpret plasma diagnostics."

Dr. Hutchinson has served as editor-in-chief of the journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, and was the 2008 Chairman of the Division of Plasma Physics of the American Physical Society.

Hutchinson is the author of the computer program TtH a TeX to HTML translator, a program for web-publishing of mathematics. He has written more than 160 journal articles on plasma phenomena and nuclear fusion. He was the 2008 Chairman of the Division of Plasma Physics group of the American Physical Society. Hutchinson is a contributor to the BioLogos Foundation.


Faith and Family

About his conversion to Christian faith, Ian Hutchinson has said, “Many of my secular friends thought that I was committing intellectual suicide by my conversion to Christianity. I can't say that I was surprised by their reaction - I was perfectly aware of the antagonism between much modern thought and Christianity - but I definitely had no sense of repudiating my intellect. If God and Christ were true, as I had come to believe, then that truth must be consistent with intellectual truth and I would with time understand how their respective claims might be reconciled.”

Dr. Hutchinson and his wife, Fran, have been married for 35 years. They have two adult children. Dr. Hutchinson is an enthusiastic choral singer. He sings baritone/tenor with the Newton Choral Society. He is a squash player and a fly-fisherman. Dr. and Mrs. Hutchinson worship at All Saints Anglican Church in Belmont, Massachusetts.

Related reading: Ian Hutchinson's Professional Page; Ian Hutchinson's Personal Page; Science: Christian and Natural by Ian Hutchinson Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Volume 55, Number 2, June 2003.

The Scientist Who Opposed Scientism

"Scientism is taking the mantle of science and claiming for it an authority that it doesn't have." -- Austin L. Hughes

Austin L Hughes is an evolutionary biologist who believes that science is not adequate to the task of answering all questions. He wrote an article for The New Atlantis that has become the manifesto for people who accept the limitations of science and reject scientism. This may be one of his most important contributions.

Scientism is the belief that science alone can answer all questions and any questions that cannot be answered by science are not important questions. Philosophically speaking, this idea was first advocated by Logical Positivists in the early 20th century.

Logical Positivism can be traced to the Vienna Circle (1922), a group of philosophers in Austria who held that experience is the only source of knowledge, and logical analysis using symbolic logic is the proper method for solving philosophical problems. Logical Positivism was popularized in Great Britain by A. J. Ayer and in the United States by Rudolf Carnap.

Logical Positivism held two key beliefs: (1) absolute confidence in empirical experience as the only source of knowledge; and (2) logical analysis performed with the help of symbolic logic is the single method for solving philosophical problems. This group of philosophers attempted to exclude metaphysics from philosophical investigation in favor of strict logical and mathematical analysis. They also stripped ethics of important aspects, such as conscience, intuition, emotion, sense of duty, moral categories of right and wrong, good and evil, etc. The result was a materialist skepticism about all truth claims. Hughes argued that such people must ultimately deny their own truth claims.

Read this interview with Austin L Hughes. He first became aware of the intolerance of scientism while doing graduate studies at Harvard. Hughes had been a Philosophy major at Georgetown University before going to Harvard. He recognized that what was being hailed as science at Harvard was really the philosophical heir to logical positivism.

Austin Hughes died on October 31, 2015 in Columbia, South Carolina. He was 66. He was a Roman Catholic and he often helped the priest of his church distribute Holy Communion. 

Here are some remarks about him and the importance of his work:

“The premature death of Austin came as a shock to the Department of Biological Sciences at USC. He was a world renowned scholar and a much-liked teacher and colleague.

His scholarly work is known all over the world, and has been cited more than 9,000 times by other scientists. He was a Carolina Distinguished Professor and we had just nominated him for the SC Governor's Award for Scientific Excellence.

When Austin started teaching courses in Domestic Animal Nutrition and Bird Biology, he quickly gained a reputation as an excellent and passionate teacher who cares for his students. In the words of one of his student evaluators: Dr. Hughes is one of the best biology professors I've had at USC.

We are saddened by the tragic passing of Austin. He will leave a gap that will be difficult to fill. Our heartfelt condolences go to his wife Andrea and his family. We wish you much strength to go through these difficult times." -- For the Biology Department at USC,  Johannes Stratmann, Chair

"It is impossible to exaggerate the importance Austin Hughes’ fundamental contributions to molecular evolutionary theory and practice. He was a prolific researcher whose work covered such disparate topics as coevolution, phylogenetics, repetitive DNA, and more recently the application of population genetics to clinical research. Austin had an incredibly sharp mind, an imitable scientific intuition, and an abundance of impatience for bad science, faulty logic, and demagoguery. Debunking unwarranted generalizations and “accepted” theories was one of his fortes. His writing was crystal clear; I wish he had written a manual of writing style for scientists. He was also fluent in the Welsh language (Cymraeg) and wrote both poetry and prose in this ancient tongue. His untimely death deprived me of a friend and colleague; science was deprived of a great biologist who knew living systems inside and out at all levels, from the molecular to ecological. I’ll miss you, Austin. Gorffwys mewn hedd."  —Dan Graur, University of Houston

"Austin Hughes was that rarest of rare birds in academia: a distinguished scientist with the soul of a humanist. At the foundation of his scientific labors was a philosophical and, indeed, theological conviction: the supreme importance of seeking and attaining truth. It was this that motivated and sustained his work. And because he was aware that this (only) rational motivation for scientific inquiry is not itself something that can be grasped by deploying scientific methods, he eschewed philosophical empiricism and scientific reductionism. He knew that non-scientific methods of inquiry are as necessary as scientific ones in the House of Intellect. For Austin, scientists and humanists were—are—not inhabitants of “two cultures,” much less “cultures in conflict”; they are, rather, friends and collaborators in the comprehensive project of truth seeking. —Robert P. George, Princeton University

I remember Austin fondly—an unusual individual to say the least. He held deep religious convictions and yet was a rigorous scientist. I would call Austin, talk to him about whatever subject, and he would come up with some form of analysis. He was a rare scientist who bridged both biology and computing; his passing is such a loss to the field. Not that his relationship with my lab members was always plain sailing. His intolerance of naïve graduate students was legendary! I would ask them, with a smile on my face, to talk to Austin about their ideas. Almost always, they would be back in my office, despondent and demoralized! But once they got to know Austin, their disposition would change. I never, ever, had a single issue with Austin. Always ready and excited to help with new analyses, and entertaining to talk to—really a wonderful colleague and friend.
—David I. Watkins, University of Miami

Related reading: The Trouble With Scientism; The Arrogance of Scientism