This is not a science blog. I have no training in science, outside of high school and college biology classes and whatever knowledge I have gained from the books I’ve read. I don’t engage in long, protracted science discussions because I don’t have the education necessary to do so. I know my limitations. I know what I know, and, most importantly, I know what I don’t know. Theology, the Bible, Evangelicalism, and sex are my specialties, and this is why I primarily write on these subjects (okay, maybe not sex). 🙂
When I post a science article, I do so because I think it will either help readers or illustrate the ignorance that is pervasive in many corners of the Evangelical world. I don’t have the skill or knowledge to adequately defend evolution, but I know people who do, and I trust them because they have the requisite training, knowledge, and experience to speak authoritatively. All of us, to some degree or another, trust experts. No one knows everything.
The problem that arises when I post a science article is that it attracts young-earth creationists. Armed with a limited understanding of science, colored by creationist presuppositions, creationists want to debate and argue with me about the article I posted. Generally, I try to steer such arguments back to the Bible and theology because I think that is the best way to disembowel creationism. Ask yourself, when’s the last time you’ve seen creationists abandon their beliefs as a result of a blog debate or discussion? It doesn’t happen, and the reason is quite simple: abandoning their beliefs would require them to also let go of their faith. Until creationists are willing to entertain the notion that they might be wrong about the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Bible, it’s impossible to reach them. Facts don’t matter because faith always trumps facts.
Young-earth creationists love to come to blogs such as this one because they can make themselves look like they are experts in disciplines such as biology, physics, archaeology, and cosmology (think Dr. David Tee, a world-renowned Evangelical archeologist). They know I am not going to engage them in a science discussion, and unless someone with a science background responds to them, that’s where the discussion ends. I’m sure they think they’ve won a mighty victory for the triune God of the Protestant Christian Bible, but all that has happened is that no one wanted to waste their time with someone who has no desire or ability to follow the evidentiary path wherever it leads.
I am content to let them play a scientist on this blog. If those of you trained in the sciences want to engage them, please do so. I will stick to what I know: theology, the Bible, and Evangelicalism. And even with these things, I have backed countless Evangelicals into a corner only to have them throw their hands up and tap out by saying FAITH! FAITH! FAITH! Once someone appeals to faith, all discussion is over (at least for me).
Each of us has competency in certain subjects or disciplines. I know where my competency lies, and I don’t pretend to know what I don’t know. Now, this does not mean that I have no understanding of science and the scientific method. I do, and my knowledge increases every time I read a science article, blog, or book. But I could follow this path for the next twenty-five years and still not have the necessary expertise to pass myself off as a science expert. I find it laughable that someone — anyone — thinks they can read x number of books and be as competent and knowledgeable as those who have spent six to ten years in college training for a specific scientific field and now work in that field every day of their lives. Such thinking is called hubris.
I am not suggesting that someone can’t become conversant and competent in a specific subject without going to college. I know firsthand the importance of study and hard work. That’s what I did for twenty-five years, spending hours and hours each week reading and studying the Bible and theology. Would I have been better off if I had gone to Princeton and not an Evangelical Bible college? Sure, but I did a pretty good job over twenty-five years plugging up the lack-of-knowledge holes. I still have gaps in my knowledge, but that can be said of every person. None of us knows everything, even when it comes to our particular area of expertise.
The good news about my areas of expertise — theology, the Bible, and Evangelicalism — is that rarely is there any new information. Outside of archaeological finds that might have some connection to the Bible, there’s not much happening in Bible Town. Sure, small skirmishes are going on over the historicity of Jesus and what the Bible really, really, really says about _______________, but for the most part, it’s just the same shit, different day. I don’t wake up in the morning and say, Hey, I wonder what new and exciting story about the Bible, theology, or Evangelicalism awaits me.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.
Pingback:Theology/Archaeology Are Sciences – theologyarchaeology
Dr. David Tee immediately responded:
Science should be engaged in helping people not wasting resources pursuing something they can never prove took place. The knowledge and expertise of all scientists should be focused on providing more food for everyone, producing cleaner vehicles, cutting pollution, finding clean water, and helping primitive tribes get medicine as well as access to healthy water supplies.
There is a lot of good work that needs to be done yet unbelievers ignore it in order to pursue their false beliefs and ideologies. Also, any ‘new’ information secular scientists discover only proves how unfair and unjust secular science and its ideologies are.
So many people have died without that information so how is it fair to them that the information was hidden from them during their lifetimes? With the Bible, and creation not changing, everyone has the same access to the same information at any time during their lives.
If unbelievers want to disparage the Bible and creation, they should take a hard look at themselves and see that they are doing exactly what they accuse the Evangelicals of doing. The unbelievers do not have the answers they think they have and should not criticize Evangelicals because the latter does have the answers they think they have
“Science should be engaged in helping people not wasting resources pursuing something they can never prove took place.”
Zoe: Oh this is rich. Back at you dear Mr. T.
A portion of Dr. David Tee’s reply: “With the Bible, and creation not changing, everyone has the same access to the same information at any time during their lives.”
So what about those who lived and died before the Bible existed as we know it today? They didn’t have access to any divine inspiration that it claims. And what Bible is he talking about exactly? The 66 books in the protestant Bible? The 73 books of the Catholic Bible? Some churches use still more. Many people today can’t even agree on what the Bible includes or excludes. By the way if David Tee is a Dr. then I’m an astronaut.
Dr Tee, I’m guessing you don’t realise that alongside your other reprehensible views that you are so proud to express, using the adjective ‘primitive’ of any other humans is disgustingly racist. If I were to ask your jesus to forgive my sins and get born again….would I have to embrace your thoroughly unpleasant bigotry, lies and all-round horrible prejudices and opinions of my fellow humans? No thanks.
“Dr.” Tee’s response reveals the crux of his narrow-mindedness and bigotry: He can’t, or simply doesn’t, think. I’m not a scientist, but I am confident in saying that there doesn’t have to be a choice between “proving something that never took place “ and providing better living conditions for people. (If he really wanted the latter, he’d let go of his prejudices.) Science can, and does, simultaneously pursue the “big questions” (including what Tee claims “never took place”) and solutions to everyday problems. Even if we can’t “prove “ evolution, studying the links between species—and between species and humans—helps scientists to better understand, for example, why we’re prone to certain illnesses. And there is more evidence in evolutionary biology for those links than there is in Genesis or any other creation story .
Studying the past can give us information in order to make advances, so it’s not a waste of time.
I am by no means a scientist. I understand the concept of the scientific method; I respect the amount of time and work it takes fir experts to become experts; and I understand that expertise in one area does not mean one has expertise in a different area.
I also understand that if there’s a complete breakdown in society like “Planet of the Apes” I’ll be virtually useless.
“Dr.” Tee’s reply to Bruce shows us why he clings to his bigotry: He can’t, or simply doesn’t, think.
Such is evident when he posits false a false dichotomy: Scientists don’t do enough to improve people’s lives because they’re “wasting resources pursuing something they can’t prove took place.” Actually, “pursuing something they can’t prove took place” (I.e. evolution) has done more to show the relationships between humans and other species—and other species with each other—than Genesis or any other creation story. And understanding those relationships has helped researchers understand why, for example, we’re prone to certain illnesses.
Even if we can’t ultimately “prove” evolution, the Big Bang or transgenderism, every bit of evidence for any of those is more than there is for the Biblical account of creation or its proscriptions for gender identity and sexual relations.
I enjoy Aron Ra’s podcast, he uses Science almost exclusively to combat the cult creationists and their wacho knock off arguments. Aron does not just challange the Christian Evangelicals but the Islamic ones as well.
For me two things, in my childhood reading, demonstrated a more rational path that the K.J.B. :
A Time Life series of books about Earth, Geology and Evolution.
Carl Sagan – The Dragons of Eden, and Cosmos.
Christian’s are very good at pontificating and pointing out the issues of nonbelievers. But when it comes to actually doing anything useful they fall flat. I recall a story about specks and planks….
If tee and his Christian cohort want to help human beings with food or medical care or shelter, they can start right now! Open churches up to house homeless people. Give up one meal a day to provide a meal to another person. Go find that person who can’t get health care and help get what they need. I think that has something to do with goats and sheep.
But Christian’s won’t do that. They will stick with thoughts and prayers.
Science does 2 things other people don’t like. It allows people to develop new theories. It also uses observation and experiment. Even if you have the best theory in the world it must stand up to repeated experiment and or observation before other scientists will acknowledge it’s veracity.
Bruce,
I am not a scientist either, but I have worked my entire career in a science/technology based field. My areas of expertise center around electricity and programming.
You made the following statement in your article: ” I have backed countless Evangelicals into a corner only to have them throw their hands up and tap out by saying FAITH! FAITH! FAITH! Once someone appeals to faith, all discussion is over (at least for me).”
Since you were a pastor in your previous life, you know that the beliefs of a Christian are realistically based on faith. There is scientific evidence to prove that certain things or people existed, but any religion truly does come down to faith. An honest Christian will admit they can never scientifically prove the beginnings of earth and life, it’s faith that God did it. The next question would be how God came into existence… Again, no answer because it’s faith.
I have no problem understanding that you had faith in God at one point in your life and things have happened to change your position and cause you to lose that faith. I fully understand that and can’t fully understand why people come on here and quote Bible verses to a guy that was a preacher for a lot of years… Not a way to prove anything to someone who doesn’t believe the Bible.
However, being that you and I are both self admittedly not scientists, we have to rely on other people to provide information to us regarding fields outside of our areas of knowledge. That requires a level of faith, either in the scientist/author or the process, but it’s still faith because we are trusting someone else is correct in their studies and conclusions. Which goes back to the point I really wanted to make… You have faith as well, just not faith in the Bible or God. We all have faith, just in different areas.
JT
I’m sorry JT, but I don’t share your views as regards faith. The problem is that the word ‘faith’ covers a lot of ground, and very often overlaps with the term ‘warranted confidence’. Religious faith is use of the word in its simplest way. Faith in religious terms is called faith because it can’t rise to the level of warranted confidence. It’s nothing more than a belief in something that can’t be properly evidenced.
Those who have expertise in their respective fields, especially science, can demonstrate a knowledge, have qualifications, and can point to empirical results that manifest in the real world. I don’t accept what ‘they’ say based purely on faith, but rather on my own ability to discern what is credible from what is not. Where ‘experts’ (and I believe we need experts, now more than ever) make claims one gets a sense as to whether there is consensus. Where one steps out of line and disagrees then it’s important to consider whether they are a ‘crank’ or whether maybe they have a point. A sensible, educated person can negotiate this, a fundamentalist, evangelical, Trump waving, vaccine denier, is at the other end of the scale and can’t figure these things.
GeoffT,
You wrote: “The problem is that the word ‘faith’ covers a lot of ground, and very often overlaps with the term ‘warranted confidence’.”
I’ll give you that with no argument, just with more details in a moment. You also wrote: “Those who have expertise in their respective fields, especially science, can demonstrate a knowledge, have qualifications, and can point to empirical results that manifest in the real world. I don’t accept what ‘they’ say based purely on faith, but rather on my own ability to discern what is credible from what is not.”
In general, I would agree with this statement but let me describe a simple scenario that I think better implies the point I wanted to make. Let’s use carbon dating as an example because I believe this one is simple enough that even Christians like me have to agree that the world is older than 6000 years old because of it, right? Let’s say I have a piece of pottery that came out of Egypt and I know the approximate age based on characteristics of the piece and the details of the area it was found in. Scientists use carbon dating to confirm what they already suspect to be true and say the piece is 3,400 years old. I have zero problems with that. However, when the same process is used to tell me that another object is 40 thousand years old, I’m a little more skeptical, and I’ll tell you why.
We can only say with certainty that carbon dating works on objects we already know an approximate age on. We can theoretically say that it works on objects we don’t know the age of, but there’s a little bit of faith involved there. We’re having faith that the carbon decay rate does not change exponentially on objects past a certain point in age… maybe it does, but we’re having faith that it doesn’t. Being that written history only goes back about 5,000 years, there’s no documentation to be able to confirm or deny what science tells us. I don’t call scientists wrong because I do not truly know, but I do think it takes faith to believe everything just happened the way they tell us it did.
As far as our ability to discern what is credible, humans are easily persuadable when a so called expert uses the right terminology when trying to prove their point. As a bad example, if you were new to the concept of electricity, I could convince you with all kinds of fancy talk that it wouldn’t shock you if you grabbed hold of the voltage carrying wire while holding onto the ground bar. In reality, you would get lit up doing that if the voltage was live. In this case, real world evidence would prove me to be wrong. In the case of things that happened 6,000 or more years ago, there’s no way to confirm or deny… which requires, in my opinion, faith to believe.
Lastly, you wrote: “A sensible, educated person can negotiate this, a fundamentalist, evangelical, Trump waving, vaccine denier, is at the other end of the scale and can’t figure these things.”
That is definitely a severe case of stereotyping. I would consider myself sensible, I do have two college degrees (one with Summa Cum Laude honors) that would qualify me as educated, I believe in the fundamentals of Christianity, I have received multiple vaccines and am not a vaccine denier but don’t agree that all people need all vaccines (nor should they be forced to take them)… So, by your statement, I am not capable of looking at data and coming to a conclusion on my own regarding science?
Also, “Trump waving” is a horrible example to use for anything. Anyone able to analyze data and look at the real picture should realize that all candidates in this year’s presidential election are unworthy for the job. Most Republicans do not want Trump, and how many Democrats voted for Kamala??? Yet those are the two we have. Blind loyalty to party is just blindness.
Thanks for the response JT. To be clear, I wasn’t associating you with the dismissive final sentence in my comment: your comment had a certain underlying logic of which the people I was referring to are incapable.
I’ll not respond to every point you make but I will comment on your point about carbon dating. The thing is that we can all of us understand the underlying science of carbon dating, which is based on the half life of carbon. Carbon dating is effective for dating materials up to about 50,000 years old. Beyond this age, the amount of carbon-14 remaining is so small that it becomes difficult to measure accurately, leading to large uncertainties. This just requires an explanation of the science, and doesn’t require any form of ‘faith’. Indeed, if anything in science descends to the point of being properly described as faith then it moves into the area of hypothesis and is discarded until proved. Importantly though carbon dating is by no means the only form of dating available, and is useless in the absence of organic material. Fortunately, there are many alternatives available, each particularly relevant to individual applications.