The Hidden Censorship of Scientism

I do read Uncommon Descent daily. Interesting article last week regarding Professor James Tour is listed as Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University.

Tour has stated his opinion that no scientist alive really understands macroevolution.  His primary concern is with the mechanism of chemical evolution.  He "makes molecules" he says, and he knows how hard it is to get all the pieces to fit together, so the question of how it all happened in nature a long, long time ago leaves him with questions.  But the ugly secret is that behind the scenes he is not alone.  Here is his claim:

"Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it."  More

Justin Lee and the Queen James Bible

It is my strong belief that the reason there is so much controversy over homosexuality in the church and culture is not because belligerent and rather disgusting figures like Fred Phelps have suddenly started persecuting gays.  It is not as though homosexuality is something new and the church has never dealt with the issue in the last 20 centuries.  Nor do I believe the primary issue is a lack of compassion for those who struggle with same-sex attraction, although certainly that common failure is worth noting.

The reason there is controversy is that a political movement has attempted to make homosexuality a civil rights issue and has aggressively and relentlessly forced that issue into public debate.

Conservatives have responded, of course, oftentimes inartfully.   And in true Alinskyite fashion, the reaction by conservatives has often been used by the political wing of the LGBT movement as a club to beat key targeted figures with, to use the emotion associated with perceived injustice as evidence of rampant injustice and sway the opinions of those who don't bother to think too deeply.

And of course the "sympathetic" figure always helps sell an idea.  (More)

C.S. Lewis on Scientism

I recently finished reading The Magician's Twin subtitled "C.S. Lewis on Science, Scientism and Society".   The book is edited by John G West.  It is a good read and it was fun to reengage with Professor Lewis' ideas once again. 

A few internet articles have made a bit of a point about Lewis' views of Darwin or Intelligent Design, but the central theme of The Magician's Twin is really not Lewis' view of Darwinism.  At the heart of the book is Lewis' view of scientism, his distrust of an overconfidence in the value of natural science to lead us to ultimate truth about the universe.  And more to the point, Lewis feared the manipulation of science by those in power.  (More)

A Conversion Story

Stunning article in CT called "My Train Wreck Conversion" the story of one Rosaria Champaign Butterfield.

The header for the article reads, "As a leftist lesbian professor, I despised Christians. Then I somehow became one." 

What was her worldview?  "As a professor of English and women's studies, on the track to becoming a tenured radical, I cared about morality, justice, and compassion. Fervent for the worldviews of Freud, Hegel, Marx, and Darwin, I strove to stand with the disempowered. I valued morality. And I probably could have stomached Jesus and his band of warriors if it weren't for how other cultural forces buttressed the Christian Right."  More

Tony Jones Slays a Unicorn (Updated)

Tony Jones posted last week on the question of whether Christian progressives have a moral foundation.  The discussion  was raised with a question from Steven Kurtz

Johathan Haidt’s new book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. He says that research has shown that Western and Educated people from Industrialized, Rich, Democratic countries (or WEIRD people) who self-identify as “progressive” (socially) use, almost exclusively two moral “foundations” as criteria for making moral judgments: Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity. We progressive WEIRD people do not use the remaining 3 foundations: Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, or Purity/sanctity – the 3 that conservatives do use, in addition to, and in a higher priority manner than Harm and Fairness.

But progressives then have a problem with the God of most traditional and especially Christian formulations – especially with retribution, punishments, curses, condemnations, as well as problems with the unfairness of the treatment of women, slaves, and other outsiders. This gives us a huge problem with the bible and the god it describes, which forces us to re-think everything. Thus our problem speaking much, or coherently about God. Where do we go for information? Obviously from the comments I’ve read, anywhere available to our tastes.

(More)

Ben Shapiro on Bullies

Not sure I relish all of Ben's recommendations or the notion we have to embrace tactics that lean toward "incivility", but there comes a point where self-defense requires a bit of force. Long video, but worth watching. Bright mind, brave soul.