Embedded Files
How did we get to such a social divide?
To unravel our tangled social consciousness we need to review our past. Darwin's Theory of Evolution did not appear until the middle of the Nineteenth Century. However, Copernicus initiated what is called the Copernican Revolution three hundred years earlier. The theory of Evolution and the Copernican Revolution have been woven together to create a significant portion of the current worldview.
The following article by Nathan Myhrvold typifies our cultural mindset. “Mars to Humanity: Get Over Yourself - So you're a human being. Well, isn't that special?” appeared as an article in Slate ( August, 1996). Ptolemy (second century) was the first and boldest in a long succession of spin doctors for the primacy of human beings. The whole, universe he postulated, rotated around us, with the Earth sitting at the center of heaven itself. Any marketing consultant will tell you that positioning is everything, and center-of-the- universe is hard to beat. A Polish astronomer named Copernicus (1473-1543) rudely pointed out: Sorry Earthlings, we spin around the sun, not vice versa. Giordano Bruno, a sort of 16th - century Carl Sagan, popularized these concepts without repenting, saying, among other things, that “innumerable suns exist. Innumerable Earths evolve around these suns. Living beings inhabit these worlds.” … “Bruno' s crime, like Galileo's, was to undermine the uniqueness of our planet, and by doing so, to threaten the intellectual security of the religious dictatorship of his time. People get cranky when you burst their bubble. Over time advances in astronomy have relentlessly reinforced the utter insignificance of Earth on a celestial scale. Mankind is not special by virtue of our address in the universe, or what spins around us, or because life originated here. Slowly, but surely, we've been compelled to renounce the comfort of these beliefs. Our true distinction is the intellectual journey that brought us to this understanding. (Nathan Myhrvold, Slate; August 15, 1996)
The last paragraph of the article is a summary of his view of man. Myhrvold doesn't disbelieve that “mankind” is special. As an executive at Microsoft, he is quite sure that he himself is special.(Myhrvold has since moved on to found his own company.) To this modern intellectual, mankind is not special because God created us in His image or because He fashioned a special place (Earth) for us. To Myhrvold mankind is special because of our intellect. However, the intellect that he is praising must think the special "Enlightened” way.
Pride in our intellectual achievements and our technology are our new idols. Myhrvold however is not alone in voicing this view of the universe. It has become fashionable to prove how intellectually mature we are by stating that we are but a microscopic dot on a tiny dirtball in a backwater galaxy. It's what we have been taught. There are millions of galaxies that are littered with billions of stars. Carl Sagan popularized the concept with his “Billions and Billions” of stars mantra. Given such a staggering array of stars, each of which could have its own planetary system, Earth cannot possibly be unique or special. Star Trek episodes and years of Star Wars movies assure us that thousands of intelligent species roam the galaxies. The fact they haven't contacted us is yet another sign of their superior intelligence. However is Myhrvold's characterization accurate?
The Greek Viewpoint:
Truth is often more complicated than fiction. Ptolemy was not the first person to propose that the sun revolved around the Earth. He was a mathematician working in Alexandria in the 2nd Century A.D. He lived within the Hellenistic Culture protected by the Pax Romana. He had inherited all the observations of the Greeks as well as a fully codified worldview covering astronomy, physics, mathematics and medicine.
During the Golden Age of Philosophy, the Greeks devised a worldview that held sway over most of the Western world for nearly two thousand years. The Greeks saw their world as composed of four elementals (i.e., earth, air, fire and water). These four fundamental components, in differing amounts, composed the visible world below the Heavens. The Heavens as the realm of perfection were composed of a different element, called quintessence.
A simple experiment capsulizes their view of the elements. If a mixture of earth, water and air were combined in a clear bottle, agitated and then allowed to stand all the elements would seek their own place. The earth sank to the bottom, the water covered the earth and the air rose above the other elements. The sub luminary region (i.e., below heaven) was in constant flux as the elements strove to reach their own natural level.
Earth wasn't so much at the center of the universe, as at the bottom. The Greeks saw the stars as jewels set on the inner surface of a giant sphere. The sky was supported on an axis that went through Earth; the sky rotated on a westward axis causing the celestial bodies to rise and set. Since the Greeks had no telescopes they relied on naked eye observations of celestial movement. Yet even this no tech approach was sufficient to create problems. The sun and the moon did not move in a uniform manner. In addition, the planets or “wanderers” as they were known, occasionally moved in retrograde (backward) before returning to their normal eastward progress.
The mathematician Eudoxus of Cnidus proposed a solution in the 4th Century B.C. Eudoxus had each body moved by a set of rotating spherical shells. This solution was adopted by Aristotle (384- 322 B.C.) who employed 55 different shells to accommodate all the known celestial bodies. According to Aristotle a Prime Mover functioned in the outer Celestial rim to initiate and power the system. The friction of the shells sliding against each other caused the stars to flicker and burn. The interior planets were set in motion by the rubbing of the shells or spheres against each other. The figure on the right, below doesn’t give a full depiction of 55 different shells however it should help to re-orient our thinking. The Greek mindset was a three-dimensional solution much more like the nested Mariska dolls with layers nested within layers. The diagram on the left depicts the Geocentric (Earth Centered) view. Using only two dimensions, a flat printed image provides a distorted view of the Greek solution.
Geocentric View of Solar System
Greek View of the Universe
Greek Universe
At approximately the same time Aristotle was fine-tuning his view of the heavens another philosopher, Aristarchus postulated a sun-centered universe. His theory however was rejected as flawed. If the Earth were revolving around the sun the Greeks were sure they would feel the motion. They reasoned that if the Earth were a moving object they would be buffeted by a constantly blowing wind. Additionally, their concept of gravity held that everything was drawn toward the center of the universe. Apples fell from trees and were drawn down, toward the center of the Earth. As the heavy Element - Earth drew everything towards itself. If the sun were the center of the universe then things would move toward the sun, which of course was foolishness. People would be pulled off of Earth and drawn into the sun.
Ptolemy, as a mathematician, knew that a much simpler solution was available if the Earth were allowed to move. However much as in the time of Aristarchus, 500 years earlier, common sense and a fully developed Aristotelian physics stood in the way.
If Ptolemy picked up a rock or some other object he could feel it tug downward, attempting to reach its natural position at the geometric center of the universe . If he watched, fire, it strove to reach its natural place at the fringe of the heavens. Each time he tossed a rock into the air - it fell at his feet. If the Earth were moving, the rock would fall several feet to his right or left.
The Earth served as the bedrock and kept mankind securely grounded both literally and figuratively in a logical system. Without telescopes, Newton's physics or pictures from outer space Aristotle's worldview and physics presented a very powerful logic.
Aristotle's view of the universe extended beyond Earth. He declared the circle, because of its lack of beginning or end, as the perfect shape. Since the heavens were the realm of perfection celestial bodies must move in perfect circles. To this end, Ptolemy devised a mathematical system, which predicted the observed motion of each of the heavenly bodies using only circles.
Ptolemy must have been an extremely talented mathematician because observations since the time of Aristotle had shown more irregularities in the “wanderers”. To compensate for these irregularities Ptolemy devised an elaborate system of constructs (i.e., The Eccentric, epicycles and the Equant). The Eccentric allowed Earth to be displaced slightly, Ptolemy's fudge factor. The epicycle was the geometric equivalent of a movable eccentric. The epicycles were used primarily with the planets Mars and Venus. The planet would move in a small circle (epicycle) at the circumference of its orbit and then resume it's normal cycle. The epicycle was useful for accounting for the apparent backward motion of the planets. The Equant was the most radical construct as it allowed for a noncircular motion within the heavens.
The end product was a very cumbersome system but it did provide accurate predictions. Ptolemy did not retain Earth at the “bottom” of the universe because of some egotistical desire to place mankind at the “center” of the universe as portrayed by Myhrvold. Ptolemy's worldview- what he had been taught and what his eyes and senses told him compelled him to find a mathematical solution to support the “fact” that Earth was the anchor of the universe . Even after the fall of Rome the European Monastic System and the Arabian Universities preserved and spread the Logic of Aristotle, the Geometry of Archimedes, the Medicine of Galen and the Astronomy of Ptolemy.
Ptolemy's Solar System
The Copernican Attempt:
It was not until 1514, 1700 years after Aristarchus first proposed the heliocentric system, that Copernicus dared to question the Aristotelian system. He proposed the following revolutionary concepts in his book On the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbs.
The Earth moves
The Earth revolves on its axis - which accounts for the daily motion of the stars
The cycle of the year is the result of the Earth's annual trip around the sun.
The apparent retrograde motion of some of the planets is the result of the Earth moving. The sun is the center of our universe
To soften the blow of a theory that literally flew in the face of commonsense Copernicus' publisher added a preface stating that the text was a mathematical hypothesis. Since the first eleven chapters were a mathematical treatise providing a method of computing and predicting celestial orbits it caused little controversy.
Copernicus had written the most sophisticated and complete mathematical treatise since Ptolemy and it was widely admired. Many astronomers used Copernicus' constructs with a geocentric model. However his heliocentric hypothesis was rejected out of hand. All educated people had been thoroughly schooled in the Aristotelian view. Earth, as the heaviest element drew everything to it. Gravitas - heaviness held you rooted to the planet. Any theory that proposed a sun-centered universe was utterly foolish as it would send you flying off into space. However for all his ingenuity and daring Copernicus’ heliocentric model failed. It did not account for all of the anomalies in the planetary movement. Copernicus could not completely break away from the Aristotelian system. He tried to design an essentially Aristotelian universe using a moving Earth. However he used circles in all his orbital pathways.
It is difficult for us, with our familiarity with the Earth as a planet moving through a Solar System within a galaxy, to comprehend the changes that were being suggested. Aristotle's universe had a finite boundary. Aristotle resisted the possibility of a void - a space that was not occupied. Infinite space has no center: every point is equally distant from all points on the periphery. And if there is no center, there is no preferred point at which the heavy element, Earth, can aggregate, nor is there an intrinsic “Up” or “Down” to determine the natural motion of an element returning to its proper place. In fact that is no “natural place” in an infinite universe, for each place is like every other. (Copernican Revolution p.78-79)
The centrality of a stable Earth was a fundamental element of Aristotle's closely-knit and coherent worldview. If the stars no longer moved on the underside of a rotating sphere; the universe was no longer a contained finite space. Space could now contain a void filled with an infinite number of stars, planets and moons. This possibility fascinated our next player.
The Medieval Mind:
In Myhrvold’s version, Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) was martyred for the cause of scientific truth. Bruno became a Dominican friar in 1565. However he was suspected of heresy and fled to Rome in 1576. Here he was involved in a murder and fled to Liguria and then Venice. The remainder of his life appeared to be lived one step ahead of disaster. He continued to wander until he arrived in Geneva where he abandoned the Dominican Order.
A year later, in 1579 he embraced Calvinism. The words of his confession were barely out of his mouth before he published a broadsheet attacking a Calvinist professor. Imprisoned for defamation Bruno was forced to write a retraction before he was allowed to leave prison and Geneva.
Moving to France he continued to write and lecture until he was forced to flee across the channel to England. In London he disputed with the Oxford professor John Underhill and wrote articles critical of English society. It was during this period that he became acquainted with the work of Copernicus and began writing about an infinite universe filled with an infinite number of worlds. Returning to France, Bruno published critical accounts of the geometrical studies of professor Mordente as well as Aristotle. His criticism forced him to flee to Germany where the Lutherans excommunicated him. The following years continued a consistent pattern as he fled from Prague to Helmstedt, to Frankfort and finally to Padua where he was denounced to the Inquisition.
He was burned at the stake as a heretic because he believed in pantheism. He was not denounced because of belief in Copernicus’ heliocentric astronomy. Copernicus’ De revolutionibus orbium coelestium had been dedicated to Pope Paul III.
Tycho Brahe's (1546-1601) was a contemporary of Bruno. Although he was not named in Myhrvold's article Brahe made important contributions to the development of astronomy. Brahe had the good fortune and skill to attract the King of Denmark. This wealthy patron built Brahe the best observatory of the time. While we think of an observatory as a place with a massive telescope, Brahe lived before the invention of the telescope. He used metal circles to help calibrate and anchor his naked eye observations of the night sky. He was the first to make corrections for atmospheric refraction. As a result of his exceptional patience and skill his observations were accurate to within a minute of an arc.
Not only were Brahe’s observations accurate they provided more cracks in the Aristotelian view. He observed comets moving through the heavens. According to Aristotle, space was not a void. The gaps between the heavenly objects were filled with the sphere that carried the object. The presence of comets moving through the heavens indicated that they were not immutable.
Brahe was faced with a grave dilemma. His own eyes had shown him things that were not possible in the Aristotelian heavens but he had no alternative to replace Aristotle's physics. The Earth had to sink and assume it's natural position. He could not accept Copernicus’ sun centered universe. Brahe found a compromise. He allowed Earth to remain at the bottom of the universe to save the Aristotelian physics. The sun and the moon still revolved around Earth. The stars remained fixed in the Heavens however the known planets (i.e., Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn), revolved around the sun, which solved the problem of their retrograde motion.
Copernicus could not give up the Aristotelian principle of the heavens (our outer space) as a place of perfection and the use of the perfect circle for all orbiting bodies in the heavens. Tycho Brahe clung to his gravitas and kept Earth as the anchor of the universe.
Tycho Brahe's assistant Johaness Kepler (1571-1630) inherited Brahe's celestial observations. Kepler's mathematical skills however allowed him to devise a system to transform direction as seen from the Earth to corresponding places in its orbit around the sun. After experimenting for years with epicenters, a holdover from the Ptolemaic system, he decided that the only possible explanation for the movement of Mars and the other planets was an elliptical orbit. Which finally produced a workable solution to the visual evidence that had confounded astronomers for a thousand years.
Myhrvold wrote as if there were some vast conspiracy that controlled the mind of mankind. Copernicus and Kepler were each focused on a mathematical problem. They saw inelegance. Aristotle and Ptolemy were separated by hundreds of years. Copernicus lived a thousand years after Ptolemy and connecting the dots via hindsight is tenuous at best. To use the work of mathematics and astronomers to create a fictitious philosophy where none existed is to write your own history.
Galileo’s Grand Moment:
Many trace the fracturing of society back to Galileo and Copernicus (or at least the creation of a rift between theology and science). Since the Catholic Church made Galileo recant his theory of a sun-centered universe as a heresy many scientists and philosophers repeat this episode as grounds for their total distrust of all things religious.
Before we condemn the Pope and the Catholic Church with the clarity of five hundred years of hindsight, it would be better to provide some historical perspective. Galileo (1564-1642) a contemporary of Kepler was a victim of his own hubris. He was a gifted mathematician, physicist and astronomer. He entered the University at Pisa to study medicine. However as the story goes he observed the motion of a swinging lamp and noted that it always required the same amount of time to complete an oscillation. A geometry lesson he overheard awakened his interest in mathematics and science.
His essay describing the hydrostatic balance made his name as an inventor. It also paved the way for him to be awarded the position of lecturer in mathematics at the University of Pisa. Following his earlier interest in motion he began to research the Aristotelian principle that bodies of different weights fall at different speeds. Contrary to the popular legend he did not drop weights from the leaning tower of Pisa. Lured by the prospect of a more lucrative salary he applied for the position of Chair of Mathematics at Padua where he remained for 18 years. It was there that he was able to prove, at least theoretically, that falling bodies obey the law of uniform accelerated motion (1604).
In Venice in 1609, Galileo learned of the invention of the telescope. Upon his return to Padua he built his own telescope and using his mechanical skills he quickly improved it. By checking the curvature of the lenses he was the first to be able to use the telescope for accurate astronomical observation. He observed that the moon was not a place of perfection, since it was covered with “canals” and craters. He discovered the moons of Saturn, the phases of Venus, a vast number of stars in the Milky Way and spots on our sun.
In 1611, he went to Rome and demonstrated the telescope to eminent personages at the papal court. Given a favorable response he ventured to write Letters on the Sunspots. The movement of spots across the face of the sun, according to Galileo proved that Copernicus was right. In addition to his skill as a mathematician and inventor Galileo had an apparent gift for writing. His wrote his letter on sunspots in Italian so that it became popular and widely circulated beyond the university.
The academic community, Aristotelian professors one and all, banded together against this threat. Using the most powerful resource available they denounced him to the Inquisition for blasphemies which they invented. Gravely alarmed, Galileo at the urging of one of his pupils, a Benedictine monk, wrote letters to the Roman authorities. Quoting patristic sources (i.e., the fathers of the Christian Church) he warned that it would be “a terrible detriment for their souls if people found themselves convinced by proof of something that it was made then a sin to believe.”
Galileo went to Rome to beg the authorities to leave the way open for a change. A number of ecclesiastical experts were on his side. Unfortunately Cardinal Bellarmine, the chief theologian of the Church held to the long honored position that “mathematical hypotheses” had nothing to do with physical reality. He saw this new theory, as causing a scandal that would aid the Protestants. Determined to nip this before it spread he declared Copernicanism “false and erroneous” and had the book (i.e., On the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbs) banned in March of 1616. However as a personal consideration to Galileo, Cardinal Bellarmine granted him a personal audience in February of 1616 to inform him of the forthcoming decree. Galileo was instructed that he could neither “hold nor defend” the Copernican Principle, although he could still discuss it as a “mathematical supposition.”
Taking this information most seriously Galileo retired to his house near Florence for the next seven years. In 1624, he again traveled to Rome seeking a revocation of the earlier decree. Failing in that he received permission from the pope to write about the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems as long as he discussed them as mathematical constructs. The book would be licensed as long as Galileo reached the conclusion that “we cannot presume to know how the world is really made because God could have brought about the same effects in ways unimagined by us, and we must not restrict His omnipotence.” (Enc. p. 1089)
Returning to Florence Galileo finished his Dialogue of the Two Chief World Systems which was published in 1632. Printed with the full imprimatur of the censors it became widely read and applauded as a literary and philosophical masterpiece. Galileo had been friends with Maffeo Barberini before his election to pope, Urban VIII. When it was pointed out to the pope that despite its noncommittal title the text was a strong plea for the Copernican system Urban VIII felt a deep betrayal. The pope immediately called for a prosecution and the church charged Galileo with “vehement suspicion of heresy.”
The fact that his work had been published with the full consent of the church was overridden by the “discovery” of a new document. This document indicated that during his 1616 meeting with Cardinal Bellarmine, Galileo had been specifically enjoined from “teaching or discussing Copernicism in any way.” On the strength of this document Galileo was brought to Rome and a trial was conducted. He was never jailed although he was interrogated. Apparently the commissary general of the Inquisition - found no great guilt and proposed that Galileo be let off with a reprimand. The full commission however ruled that he was guilty and must be sentenced.
On June 21, he was declared guilty of having “held and taught” the Copernican system and was ordered to recant. Galileo recited the formula that he “abjured, cursed and detested” his past errors. Although it is reported that as he left the room he muttered “but the Earth still moves.”
He was sentenced to house arrest in his villa in Florence. He kept his pension and he continued to teach and communicate through letters and publications for the remaining eight years of his life.
Each of these men worked within their own mindset and social consciousness. Aristotle did not think of himself as an Ancient Philosopher. Copernicus and later Galileo did not ponder “Medieval or Renaissance thoughts.” Labels are useful for describing a general or overall characteristic, but they frequently obliterate the nuances that are people. History should be a dispassionate review of past events. However in the hands of someone who is seeking to “make” a point history can undergo significant “rewriting or retelling.”
In Myhrvold's retelling of the development of science the subtext is that religion is against reason. Religion is the opposite of truth. Copernicus' Revolution is portrayed as removing Earth and thus mankind from its special place in the universe. The Bible clearly states that mankind was made in the image of God. Mankind is thus special. The universe was created by God and specifically designed for man, His final creation.
The insignificance of the planet Earth is a consistent and repeated theme of many naturalist philosophers. In the materialistic view there is only a material world - lots and lots of it and we are merely a small speck on a miniscule planet in a backwater of a gigantic universe. All of which evolved by chance out of cosmic chaos.
I have always found it difficult to fully understand the concept of randomness and creation via chance. If chaos truly reigns then the universe would be one way on Tuesday and another way on Wednesday, making science impossible. Pardon my random thought.
Now a not so random thought and one that will shock most people. Science is built on a solid Judeo-Christian foundation. Most history and all science books have been rewritten to obscure if not obliterate the Christian alliance with science.
The Judeo-Christian Worldview provides fundamental presumptions of the scientific method. Science as a systematic investigation did not emerge until the 1600’s in Europe. Most of the founders of modern science were Christians (e.g., Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Pascal and Boyle). Contrary to what is espoused by the materialistic worldview the basic presumptions of modern research (i.e., testability, experimentation and falsification) are rooted in the Judeo-Christian worldview. These deeply religious men sought to know the mind of God. Since mankind is made in the image of God we are able to think in a finite way like God. God made a world and a universe that is logical, systematic and knowable.
Galileo - Astronomy
Tycho Brahe – Astronomy
Sir Francis Bacon- Inductive Method
Johan Kepler - Planetary Motion
Descartes - Empiricism
Sir Isaac Newton- Mathematician, Physicist- Laws of Gravity and Motion
Blaise Pascal - Physics and Math
Robert Boyle - Chemistry
Quotes: from these men of Faith:
Descartes – “I know that God is the author of all things.”
Newton - “God created everything by number, weight and measure.”
Bacon - “God has two textbooks - scripture and creation – We would do well to listen to both. ‘’
Louis Pasteur - "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator."
Robert Boyle - "When with bold telescopes I survey the old and newly discovered stars and planets;. . . and by the light of chemical furnaces I study the book of nature I find myself often times reduced; to exclaim with the psalmist, how manifold are thy works O Lord! in wisdom has Thou made all! "
Christians base their worldview on their Creator. God created the universe, ex nihilio (out of nothing). God is infinite and eternal however the universe He created had a beginning and is finite. The universe is designed for us to know and experience. The Bible directs God’s people to seek His face; to look to the heavens and know the glory of His creation. The physical world, what we can see, feel and touch is an objective reality which is in opposition to many philosophies and some religions. Sensory data is reliable, discernible and trustworthy. Which provides a logical foundation for science. God is not a trickster. The sun rose in the East today and it will tomorrow. Data that is collected on Tuesday can be repeated on Wednesday and the results will be the same. If we conducted the experiment correctly and controlled all the variables. We were created in God’s image and can discern His fingerprints. We were designed to be curious and that curiosity is rewarded.
Belief in a Creator did not diminish these scientists' diligence in studying nature. According to the Bible we are to seek to know God's works and to seek Him through His Creation. Neither does this desire to know God distort nor require a Special Christian Science. God is Truth. I would challenge everyone to seek their Creator through the pursuit of Truth. Which brings us to the next point.
Our culture is heavily indoctrinated with the wonders of science and the scientific method. Our children study science in kindergarten. Given this pervasiveness we tend to assume that the study of science occurs naturally. Other cultures and ancient civilizations reached high levels of achievement however they never developed active science programs.
After analyzing many of these civilizations Dr. Stanley Jaki wrote that their efforts to create a scientific mind set were stillborn. He lists the following six impediments to the development of science: a cyclical view of history, a pseudo- scientific explanation, deification of nature (animism), denial of existence, lack of a balance of faith and reason and humanity perceived as a part of nature.
A cyclical view of history results in a perspective that sees the passage of time as a process that repeats itself. Many Eastern religions and philosophies think a cyclical view of life is fulfilled as reincarnation. Given this view of reality there is little incentive to discover anything other than the reappearance of a new cycle. Without a linear view of history there is no impetuous to seek cause and effect. The Mayans were consumed with determining the cyclical aspect of time. They developed multiple calendars. The Haab cycle represented the solar year of 365 days. The sacred calendar, Tzolk had 260 unique days, based on cycles of the moon. The Calendar Round was made by interweaving the Tzolk and the Haab calendars. To date mythical and historical events the Maya developed what is called the Long Count Calendar. The Mayan Long Calendar measures 1,872,000 days. This cycle ended on the Winter Solstice December 21, 2012. Websites sprang up and the electronic media feasted on the Mayan Calendar “predicting” the end of the world on December 21, 2012. Since you are reading this several years after the "doomsday" event, another man-made prediction failed. The Mayan people and archaeologists who study the Mayan calendar were not drawn into the frenzy because they understood that the Long Count Calendar was just what its name said - a way of counting very long period of time. However it does point to the fact that the Mayans expended much of their cultural and intellectual capital on the prediction of cyclical movements of the heavens. Little or no effort was made to pursue the discovery of cause and effect.
A second aspect that is an impediment to the development of the scientific method is the usage of pseudo-scientific explanations. The best example of that is astrology. It is based on the stars however man’s fate is determined by the “sign” he was born under or the convergence of astrological signs. There is no science or experimentation necessary when life is determined by the alignment of the stars. The Babylonians, conquered much of the Middle East, built vast cities and the fabled Hanging Gardens of Babylon. However they mixed their astronomy with astrology and sought to know the future through the divination of animal entrails.
The third impediment to the development of science is the deification of nature. In its most elemental form this is “animism”. Primitive cultures believe that elements such as rocks, the wind, and the sea are alive or controlled by spirits that must be placated. The Egyptians were able to build temples and pyramids and dominate much of the Middle East for centuries but they never studied nature or the physical world. They worshipped the Crocodile God, the sun God Ra and offered sacrifices to ensure that the Nile flooded their land and nourished the soil. Much of their cultural capital was focused on placating the elements of nature.
The deification of nature is also evidenced in pantheism ( i.e., all is god). God is seen in everything. The inability to separate nature and mankind or the separation of an objective reality would limit any effort to study nature or the universe. Mother Nature would simply be worshipped. The Druids were an ancient group who worshiped nature. Pantheism has had a contemporary rebirth in the casual manner in which many people refer to Mother Nature as a universal descriptor of reality. The radical ecology movement aggressively pursues the concept that Mother Earth is sacred. Mankind is a blight that should be reduced if not eliminated.
The fourth impediment to the development of science is the denial of orderliness or the existence of the universe. While it may sound totally illogical to deny the existence of the physical world the Hindu religion does. India’s culture had the knowledge of Arabic mathematics but their religious and philosophical roots were that the world was an illusion. One could not study that which is not real.
Most Americans do not have a strong knowledge of the Hindu religion however much of Western thought is based on the philosophical writings of the Greeks. The Greeks reached a high level of civilization and yet they did not develop the scientific method. They believed in idealism. Plato’s allegory of the cave is an example. In the allegory the people in the cave saw only the flickering reflections or shadows cast on the walls. Plato taught that we live in a world that is but a shadow of the Forms. The “Ideals” exist on another level in a state of perfection . Aristotle, Plato’s pupil, believed that motion was “of” the object therefore a heavy object would fall faster than a lighter object. However no one went to the top of a tall building and dropped two rocks of different weight. The Greek philosophy did not require experimentation and so their “science” was stillborn. Either worldview, that of chaos or the denial of “reality” would undercut any effort to study nature and reality.
The fifth impediment, the lack of a balance between faith and reason, is firmly rooted in a modern perspective. It calls for the incompatibility of faith and science. This impediment is perhaps best understood as the worldview expressed by humanists. Carl Sagan spoke of viewing mankind’s history as a progression from cave man to space man. Primitive man (cave man) was filled with superstition and little knowledge of science. Therefore he was fearful of lightning and attributed the rain to the gods. Cave man sought to placate the gods and elements that he could not understand. Years pass and mankind advances to the next stage; what Sagan called the God/man stage. At this level mankind has some understanding of science and “created” God in man’s image and institutional religions. Sagan saw the evolution of mankind fulfilled in the Spaceman who throws off the shackles of faith and totally commits to the true light of science. It must be reinforced that the “science” Dr. Sagan is touting has a very specific view. Methodological naturalism which limits the explanation of reality to empirical data.
This is a very powerful formula which is currently presented in most history and science books as the progressive view of mankind . Fulfilling the evolutionary myth we poor animals are merely scavengers from the savanna who clawed our way up from primordial ooze. To deny this progression is to be labeled as a member of the radical far right who is anti-science, believes in a flat earth and even God.
The final impediment is the non-separation of mankind from nature. If mankind is merely another aspect of nature there is no distance between nor the ability to study and investigate nature. The Darwinian view of mankind is that we are merely another animal. Darwin’s view of mankind is as an evolved animal, a creature cobbled together by random selection. Which would make the human brain nothing more than a randomly “evolved” lump. Making intellectual life, consciousness and the ability to discern our existence a random event. In the battle for social consciousness it is frequently expressed that anyone who has religious faith is thereby incapable of conducting scientific study or work. Having faith in God as the Creator does NOT mean a person becomes incapable of discernment. Dr. Behe wrote. "If my graduate student came into my office and said that the angel of death killed her bacterial culture, I would be disinclined to believe her. The Journal of Biological Chemistry is unlikely to start a new section on the spiritual regulation of enzyme activity. (Darwin's Black Box p. 241)
God’s Character is Foundational to the Scientific Method
1. Mankind is Created in God’s Image
2. The universe is designed for us to know and experience
3. The Bible directs God’s people to seek His face and know the glory of His creation.
4. The physical world is a reality - Sensory data is reliable. God is not a trickster
5. God designed us with curiosity
The Christian founders of modern science believed that the heavens declared the glory of God. Christians are told to look to nature to see God’s creation and that God’s handiwork is discoverable. Since mankind is made in His image we can discern His mind through the glory of His Creation. Christianity presupposes that there is a real world; that it is comprehensible; that sense data is reliable; that nature is orderly and uniform, and accepts the validity of mathematics and logic. Given a finite universe that is God’s creation - God Himself invited us to explore His creation - an orderly logical and knowable universe. There is no Special Christian Science. Nor is God a trickster. The sun rose in the East today and it will tomorrow. Experiments that were run on Tuesday can be repeated on Wednesday and the results will be the same. If, we conducted the experiment correctly and controlled all the variables. Because we were created in God’s image we can discern His fingerprints. We were designed to be curious and that curiosity is rewarded.
At issue is not science but a worldview. Remember the different cultures that were reviewed? Each cultural mindset guided that civilization to value specific achievements and allocate their resources accordingly. Christianity and materialism are currently vying for the cultural soul of America and the eternal soul of all humanity. Materialism espouses the view of man as an animal. Remember the sarcasm in Myhrvold's article titled "So you're a human being. Well isn't that special?" Materialism undergirds itself with the Theory of Evolution. Having claimed that "it" speaks for science and is the arbiter of Truth- materialism has sought to replace absolute morality with man-made rules based on the sliding scale of relativism. The contrast between the two worldviews is stark:
Materialism Christianity
Man is an evolved animal Mankind is a Special Creation of God
Survival of the Fittest - (Winner takes All) Absolute Morality - 10 Commandments
Grab for all the Gusto- Altruism - Love thy neighbor
No eternal consequences Eternal judgment - Consequences
Mankind - is a soulless beast Mankind is a Child of God - endowed with an eternal soul
The battle for mankind is one of eternal consequences. However it is not one in which you are weaponless. God as the Creator of all things both great and small did not initiate a universe nor anything in nature that does not bear His fingerprints. Materialists and Darwinian evolution are guilty of misrepresentation, misinterpretation, and fudging the data. Just as God breathed life and a soul into His children He also granted us the gift of choice. Let us choose to seek Him in all things.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse