Militant Science & Apostle Krauss
by Regis Nicoll
. . . Francis Bacon, Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, and Isaac Newton were all men of faith whose faith gave them hope that scientific knowledge was attainable. Because the universe was the product of an Intelligence that made it intelligible to intelligent beings, they had confidence that man could discover something of the true nature of nature by careful observation and experimentation. Kepler put it this way: “The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which he has revealed to us in the language of mathematics.” . . . .
ETI In the Sky
What the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life Means for Us
by Hugh Ross
. . . In many respects, SETI research is a waste of time, money, and talent. However, these latest SETI efforts are yielding greater insights into and appreciation for just how many plans, preparations, and preliminary steps—especially the carefully orchestrated introduction of certain forms of non-intelligent life—are needed to make possible a narrow time window during which an intelligent living species can exist on a planet, and how many more plans, preparations, and carefully orchestrated steps must be taken to enable such a species to launch and sustain a high-technology civilization. . . .
Georges Lemaître, the Catholic Priest Behind the Big Bang
by Ray Cavanaugh
. . . Lemaître presented this theory in writing to Einstein in October 1927, when the two first met at a conference in Brussels. As the priest later recalled, Einstein’s response was, “Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable.” Lemaître’s work was more or less dismissed by the New York Times, which called his theory “highly romantic.” The encyclopedia Notable Scientists said that Lemaître’s main problem was that his theory “lacked sufficient mathematical backing for widespread acceptance.” Such backing would arrive in the fullness of time. . . .
Multiverse Supporters Put the Brakes on Falsifiability
by Denyse O’Leary
. . . Here is a prediction: To the extent that science is dominated by naturalist atheists, falsifiability will not survive as a criterion. That’s because it depends on the idea that there is something out there that can falsify things—call it “god” or whatever you want. Instead, whatever speculation supports the multiverse or some similar shibboleth will count for far more than any failure of evidence. And the naturalist atheists’ next war will, of course, be against the very idea of evidence. What evidence counts for will depend on who is presenting it and what causes it is thought to support. . . .
Clearing Up Cosmos
The Unofficial Guide to Cosmos: Fact and Fiction in Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Landmark Science Series
reviewed by Terrell Clemmons
. . . If you like science—science done well, that is—you’ll find invaluable help making sense out of Cosmos with The Unofficial Guide to Cosmos: Fact and Fiction in Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Landmark Science Series, an easily readable volume co-authored by Ell, Richards, David Klinghoffer, and Casey Luskin. The Unofficial Guide to Cosmos sorts out, episode by episode, the legitimate science from the liberal doses of materialist philosophy, revised history, and brazen ideology the makers of the series have carelessly (or intentionally?) stirred into the mix. . . .
Lunar Origin Causes “Philosophical Disquiet”
by Hugh Ross
. . . In yet another article in the same issue as Canup’s review, earth scientist Tim Elliott observes that the degree and kinds of complexity and fine-tuning required by lunar origin models appear to be increasing at an exponential rate. Among lunar origin researchers, he notes, “the sequence of conditions that currently seems necessary in these revised versions of lunar formation have led to philosophical disquiet.” . . .
Why Scientists Can’t Reconstruct Darwin’s “Tree of Life”
by Casey Luskin
. . . About the same time, another discovery was made that confounded evolutionary biologists who studied genes: they found that the three domains of life could not be resolved into a tree-like pattern. This led the prominent biochemist W. Ford Doolittle to famously lament: “Molecular phylogenists will have failed to find the ‘true tree,’ not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree.” He later acknowledged, “It is as if we have failed at the task that Darwin set for us: delineating the unique structure of the tree of life.” . . .
In the Beginning
Episodes in the Origin & Development of Science
by Michael Keas
. . . Why have we forgotten most of the positive contributions of Christianity to the rise of modern science? This cultural amnesia is largely due to the influence of a number of anti-Christian myths about science and religion. These myths teach that science came of age only in the victory of naturalism over Christianity. This article will review and correct some of those myths, so that the next time you hear one of them, you can counter it with the true story of science and faith. . . .
Blinded by Science
Believe Science Has All the Answers? Evolutionary Biologist Austin Hughes Says, Open Your Eyes
. . . If it’s real science, then it’s not scientism. Scientism is taking the mantle of science and claiming for it an authority that it doesn’t have. Examples would include scientists who maintain that evolution disproves the existence of God or who say that we exist in a purposeless, random universe. And then there are those physicists who insist that the universe gave rise to itself, or the whole field of what is called evolutionary psychology. These are examples of speculative storytelling that have absolutely no evidence behind them. . . .
Can Science Explain “Origins”?
by Patrick Henry Reardon
. . . Fortunately, we live in a more enlightened age, don’t we? Modern people invariably rest their cases on well-founded and proven facts, don’t they? You never hear anybody nowadays adhering to exotic and improbable theories about the origins of nature and the structure of the universe. Indeed, what do modern people believe on these subjects? Let us take an outstanding example of modern enlightened thought. Let us consider Dr. Lawrence Krauss, head of the “Origins Project” at Arizona State University. . . .
“Faith” No More
It’s Time We Did Away with the Notion of Religious Wishful Thinking
by Greg Koukl
. . . Someone once said, “The heart cannot believe that which the mind rejects.” If you are not confident that the message of the Bible is actually true, you can’t believe it no matter how hard you try. The “I just take Christianity on (blind) faith” attitude can’t be the right approach. It leaves the Bible without defense, yet Peter directs us to make a defense for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). Also, the biblical word for faith, pistis, doesn’t mean “wishing.” It means “active trust.” And trust cannot be conjured up or manufactured. It must be earned. . . .
Are Science & Religion at War?
by Cameron Wybrow
. . . modern historical study suggests not only that Christianity is compatible with science, but that it was a central historical cause of the birth of modern science. This claim, made by Pierre Duhem, Michael Foster, R. G. Collingwood, Reijer Hooykaas, Francis Oakley, Stanley Jaki, and many others, is now widely accepted among historians of science, even if it has not yet filtered down to the popular press. . . .
The Evolution Of a Christian
An Interview with Dr. Fazale Rana
by James M. Kushiner
. . . As a scientist, you can be highly trained—but poorly educated. You don’t take courses in the philosophy of science or the history of science. You just learn how to do science, and the training is basically, “Here, this is how you do science.” And part of that training is the idea that you don’t appeal to the supernatural. In retrospect, it’s blatantly obvious, but as a scientist you are simply drinking the Kool-Aid: “This is how you do science.” . . .
Sci-Fact or Sci-Fi?
What We Won’t Learn from Hyped-Up Science News Headlines
by Casey Luskin
. . . So why are such paltry and uncertain claims being hyped in the first place? Materialists are apparently desperate for such “good news” stories because they need them in order to convince their patrons, the public, to continue funding their work. The media willingly cooperates, printing stories that sound plausible but that are ultimately science fiction. The fact that materialist cultural elites are willing to hype such modest—and dubious—claims tells you everything you need to know about the state of the evidence. If they had something better, we’d surely know about it. . . .
For years Salvo has been publishing thoughtful articles on science & faith, and you can be sure that we will continue to do so. Subscribe today at a discounted rate and receive Salvo in your mailbox, only $19.99 PLUS the special Science & Faith issue.