Are You a Science Fundamentalist?

A liberal friend of mine has bestowed on me the concept of “scientific fundamentalism.” He didn’t mean to. He was criticizing “former Catholics turned fundamentalist” who make like they have all the answers.

Well, we all do that from time to time, don’t we? “After all,” I said, “you’re 100%, rock-solid sure about Darwinism, the Big Bang, Global Warming, and all that stuff.” He replied that you can’t compare the Bible’s moral teachings–he does not consider the Bible factual–with the clarity of scientific discovery.

ROFL. They program their computers and then they discover what they themselves put into them. How do you truly discover anything without observing it? But no one has ever observed Evolution, and no one ever will. As for Global Warming–without lies, cheating, and bullying, it wouldn’t last another day.

So what is a science fundamentalist? It’s someone who accepts unquestioningly whatever “scientists” or “Science” says about anything under the sun–usually while subjecting the Word of God to the most intense scrutiny. All he needs to hear are magic words–like, “the science is settled,” or “the consensus among scientists is…”–and his brain shuts down.


As I write this, the police are performing military-style drills on the street outside. As much as I enjoy bagpipe music, it disturbs me to hear police officers shouting in unison and loudly marching in step.

Does anyone else find this at all disturbing? I mean, the police force is an agency of the civilian government, not a military organization. Or has that definition been changed while my attention was directed elsewhere?


21 comments on “Are You a Science Fundamentalist?

  1. The first concept of science is that it is open to new discovery. Think about Copernicus and Galileo and Newton followed by Einstein, to be followed by what ? Every generation is stupid enough to repeat the past mistakes of all the previous generations . So, they stupidly flip their tongue roller bearings over such stupidity as “settled science,” which is really political science, which itself is just another stupid misnomer foisted on stupid people by other people either stupids or cupids.

    Dave Colonel

  2. There was a time when people believed the world was flat, we now know that’s not true. Something Isaiah 40:22 told us long before scientists by the way. Scientists in the 1950’s used to believe the universe was eternal, we now know it had a beginning. Something Genesis 1:1 already told us. I wonder what else scientists believe now that will be proven wrong in the future. Science is always in flux, what is true today may not be true tomorrow. This is why scientific textbooks have to be updated every year. So how can someone put so much faith in a system that is always changing? Science has is uses, but it’s not the end all be all.

  3. As soon as someone starts rejecting information which challenges their views, they are on the slippery slope to self-deception. It used to be that science was a search for truth. But more and more, it seems like the goal is preserving cherished notions, with no regard as to their veracity. It brings to mind Jesus’ words that no house divided against itself can stand. What we are seeing is the last desperate attempt to prop up something that is collapsing.

  4. Hmm… I think the question is better asked, “Are you able to adapt your personal lifestyle and beliefs to accept a given balance of science AND theology in order to accommodate interaction in the real world.. or, do you prefer separating the two as conflicting counter-points simply to thump your chest one way or the other?”

    1. Doug, even positing a “balance of” science and theology as “accommodating reality” assumes that the two are mutually exclusive entities — pretty much what you accuse your opponent of thinking. My own religion assumes that theology and science are both about reality. But the kind of quasi-science Lee is talking about is more faith-based than reality-based.

    2. Faith-based science?? Unless that means.. if a scientist tells me electrons flow along a wire to make electricity, I will likely believe him given I am not a scientist myself.. I understand. But if you are suggesting there’s some “other” faith-based science thing going on.. I dunno what that is.

    3. What’s wrong with acknowledging evolution in and of itself as also having been created by the Almighty as part of humankind? Why is it difficult to allow that evolution is part of God’s divine plan.. just as it is part of His divine plan for man to explore past the frontiers of man’s knowledge, striving to go as far as he can to seek his origins by understanding his past in order to understand his future… and to the possible goal of coming face-to-face with the Creator… who created more than man.. but also the entire universe?

    4. Speaking only for myself, I don’t find Darwinism convincing by any standard, based as it is on things that no one has ever observed and never will: and a few other things, such as the innate conservatism of DNA, and the extreme unlikelihood of beneficial mutations building up to the point to turn one kind of animal into another.

    5. And that’s certainly another viewpoint if life has brought you to that opinion. I’ll not argue nor debate as likely you’ve been there, done that before.. and it’s your spiritual frame not for me to challenge.

    6. Well… I contend that faith is that part of our psyche that attempts to validate or explain that we cannot promote as fact. Science, as David Ingram suggests in his reply, relies on skepticism.. or.. a challenge to some faith, that is either proven or disproved. Faith is where we place the mysteries of life that can also include hope for the future.. or a hope for mankind in general. Science… essentially that’s the “math” that makes man’s progress possible. Two different mindsets, yet born of the singular nature that is man.

    7. Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.. In fact, Thomas Aquinas long ago showed that reason was capable of leading to faith — or, as he would say, The Faith, meaning Christianity. Again, you speak of “faith-based science” as though one must choose either one. No. Faith takes off from what reason establishes, and, conversely, reason can show one’s faith to be true, i.e., based on reality.

    8. Aquinas is a cleric, theologian. Not sure how he might answer for or against science when he’s got an apparent bias toward faith. Anyway.. be that as it may, I’m more a humanist and prefer to assign to all humans the natural instinct to have faith in that reality which requires it, and to appreciate science as a reality tool for survival. The only “choosing” is the degree in which we might assign to both in order for a mental balance that gives us personal satisfaction. Some of us like to understand how a light switch turns on a light and others of us are just fine knowing that flipping the switch on turns on the light when it’s needed. Faith is as “true” as anyone wishes it to be for their own personal satisfaction… it’s just not “true” for everyone all the time.
      I realize you are trying to assign reality value to Christian faith in order to validate it’s place in reality, and that’s fine to me; not my place to challenge that. What I am saying is that any faith, if it provides solace to the mind, is equal.

    9. “Assign reality value”–that’s rich. Like, we do it but you don’t ’cause your stuff really is reality. Sheesh.

    10. To exclude someone who believes in a system of thought from any discussion of systems of thought simply because he does believe in it is yet another logical fallacy. One might just as easily exclude a nonbeliever from the discussion on the grounds that he’s biased against the religion he disbelieves in.

      You also beg the question by assuming that faith has no basis in reason but only in a person’s “need” or “wishes. That was your original proposition, which, to be logical, you must prove, not just keep repeating it. If you’re going to claim that believers are irrational and nonbelievers (except in the almighty “science,” for which you keep changing the definition) are rational, you must engage in the argument rationally, not just keep repeating your assertion as though it’s a given. It would seem that the believers here keep trying to use reason and evidence, while the nonbeliever keeps retreating from them. 🙂

    11. Ok.. well… all this is getting deep to the point of entering the.. “Does it really matter?” category. You will likely assign my reluctance to continue as some surrender to whatever complex logic you wish to present… and pretty much you would be correct.
      But I am curious.. do you, Phoebe, have a blog?

  5. Science relies on skepticism. A hypothesis has to be challenged as many ways as possible before it is to be accepted. Speculation about how things may be is great but is not hard science.

Leave a Reply