It is hard to say where to begin when dismantling something this irrational, so I suppose I should follow the advice of the king in Through the Looking Glass to Alice, to start at the beginning and keep going until I've reached the end. A common misconception that ran through media stories about Stephen Hawking's latest book, The Grand Design, was that Hawking claimed that there is no God. Nonsense. In the book, Hawking claimed that modern physics has no need of the idea of God to explain the world as we know it. He never claims that there is explicitly no God; there is a difference between the two, and it is clear that neither of the authors of the letter took the time to read it and find out for themselves (nor is it obvious that they would have the intelligence to finish it or comprehend any of it).
The second false assertion is that "We have evidence that God exists." No, we do not. Belief or non-belief in a God or any Deity remains a matter of personal faith; despite claims to the contrary (I'm talking to you, Lee Strobel), nothing in science presents itself as evidence for a belief in God (though certainly believers will find certain aspects, such as the apparent complexity of DNA, as evidence for a designer). Science deals with the natural world, and being by definition a supernatural entity the idea of God can neither be proven nor disproved by science.
The authors latch on to the apparent fine-tuning of the earth for life to act as evidence for God. This is also a mistake. The strong anthopic principle is at work here, the idea that the universe, supporting at least one planet with life, must have the properties leading to a certain form of life. In the hands of some apologists, the Universe was designed specifically for us as we exist here. Unfortunately, this is an anthropocentric argument; change the species to focus on, say, mice, then it would seem that, given the existence of mice, the earth is fine-tuned for the existence of mice! In addition, the existence of many earth-like planets implies that Earth itself is not so special after all; draw this out to the entire universe and, reminded of the good reasons physicists and cosmologists have for positing the Multiverse hypothesis, even our universe may not be so special after all.
"Design needs a designer, and that designer is God." Not necessarily so. We understand from evolution that while much of life has the appearance of design, it implies no designer. Even were there a designer, it would not necessarily follow that it would have to be a Deity, much less the God of the Bible.
The long list of so-called facts from the Bible vs. "science" follows, setting up endless straw men of science just to easily knock them down again. They claim the Bible posits a spherical world while "science" thought the world was flat. Patently false; the reverse is precisely the case. It was the Hebrew authors of the Old Testament who thought that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, while the polytheistic Greeks knew that the world was round (though they too believed the sun revolved around the earth). Science showed that the sun was the center of the universe; the Catholic Church condemned this as a heresy based on readings of the Bible.
"Bible: Light moves (Job 38:19, 20). Science said it stood still." According to whom? In this, as with the following few claims, the authors make no citation as to just who and when in the history of "science" said such a thing.
"Bible: Blood source of life (Leviticus 17:11). Science said sick people should be bled." A confusion that conflates medicine with science, two similar but different disciplines.
"Bible: Hittite nation (Genesis 23:10). Science denied it until 1906." The existence of a people called the Hittites is a matter for historians, not scientists. So criticize the discipline of History on this one, not science. And they were discovered in the 19th Century, not 1906 as they claim.
Let's not forget some other memorable science from the Bible; (my own observations this time).
Bible: All of humanity descended from two people, Adam and Eve. Science: humans evolved from earlier forms, genetic evidence positing a common descent from a group of individuals out of Africa.
Bible: sun revolves around the earth (read the account where Joshua asked God to have the sun stand still in the sky while he finished a battle, an indication of an earth-centered solar system). Science; earth revolves around the sun.
Bible: A global flood wiped out all living things save a small number of people and two of each kind. Science: no evidence for a global flood, in spite of centuries of searching. However, good evidence for other mass catastrophes in our past.
Bible: mankind formed from the dust of the earth; females created by taking the rib of the first man. Science: again, humans evolved from other forms.
Bible: no one died before the Fall of Man (eating a piece of fruit that gave them knowledge of good and evil). Science: death has always occurred; not only is it inevitable but it is necessary for the continuance of life.
And so forth. While some may be offended that I have committed the unspeakable crime of mocking their sacred faith, I would point out that many sects of Christianity view all of these stories as metaphors, a way of explaining the way things are rather than an actual historical event. They have no problem with science, more or less.
The idea that one must chose between the (narrow, literal) reading of the Bible and science is a false dichotomy. Mr. Brooks and Ms. Johnson do the public a disservice by pretending otherwise. And do you really want to inject religion into science and risk having the specific claims made by religion to fall under the empirical testing of science? Do us all a favor, and stop trying to inject your specific brand of religion into science. Take it as the spiritual guide that it was meant to be, not the science textbook you pretend it is. As the late Pope John Paul II said, echoing Galileo centuries before, "The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
The second false assertion is that "We have evidence that God exists." No, we do not. Belief or non-belief in a God or any Deity remains a matter of personal faith; despite claims to the contrary (I'm talking to you, Lee Strobel), nothing in science presents itself as evidence for a belief in God (though certainly believers will find certain aspects, such as the apparent complexity of DNA, as evidence for a designer). Science deals with the natural world, and being by definition a supernatural entity the idea of God can neither be proven nor disproved by science.
The authors latch on to the apparent fine-tuning of the earth for life to act as evidence for God. This is also a mistake. The strong anthopic principle is at work here, the idea that the universe, supporting at least one planet with life, must have the properties leading to a certain form of life. In the hands of some apologists, the Universe was designed specifically for us as we exist here. Unfortunately, this is an anthropocentric argument; change the species to focus on, say, mice, then it would seem that, given the existence of mice, the earth is fine-tuned for the existence of mice! In addition, the existence of many earth-like planets implies that Earth itself is not so special after all; draw this out to the entire universe and, reminded of the good reasons physicists and cosmologists have for positing the Multiverse hypothesis, even our universe may not be so special after all.
"Design needs a designer, and that designer is God." Not necessarily so. We understand from evolution that while much of life has the appearance of design, it implies no designer. Even were there a designer, it would not necessarily follow that it would have to be a Deity, much less the God of the Bible.
The long list of so-called facts from the Bible vs. "science" follows, setting up endless straw men of science just to easily knock them down again. They claim the Bible posits a spherical world while "science" thought the world was flat. Patently false; the reverse is precisely the case. It was the Hebrew authors of the Old Testament who thought that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, while the polytheistic Greeks knew that the world was round (though they too believed the sun revolved around the earth). Science showed that the sun was the center of the universe; the Catholic Church condemned this as a heresy based on readings of the Bible.
"Bible: Light moves (Job 38:19, 20). Science said it stood still." According to whom? In this, as with the following few claims, the authors make no citation as to just who and when in the history of "science" said such a thing.
"Bible: Blood source of life (Leviticus 17:11). Science said sick people should be bled." A confusion that conflates medicine with science, two similar but different disciplines.
"Bible: Hittite nation (Genesis 23:10). Science denied it until 1906." The existence of a people called the Hittites is a matter for historians, not scientists. So criticize the discipline of History on this one, not science. And they were discovered in the 19th Century, not 1906 as they claim.
Let's not forget some other memorable science from the Bible; (my own observations this time).
Bible: All of humanity descended from two people, Adam and Eve. Science: humans evolved from earlier forms, genetic evidence positing a common descent from a group of individuals out of Africa.
Bible: sun revolves around the earth (read the account where Joshua asked God to have the sun stand still in the sky while he finished a battle, an indication of an earth-centered solar system). Science; earth revolves around the sun.
Bible: A global flood wiped out all living things save a small number of people and two of each kind. Science: no evidence for a global flood, in spite of centuries of searching. However, good evidence for other mass catastrophes in our past.
Bible: mankind formed from the dust of the earth; females created by taking the rib of the first man. Science: again, humans evolved from other forms.
Bible: no one died before the Fall of Man (eating a piece of fruit that gave them knowledge of good and evil). Science: death has always occurred; not only is it inevitable but it is necessary for the continuance of life.
And so forth. While some may be offended that I have committed the unspeakable crime of mocking their sacred faith, I would point out that many sects of Christianity view all of these stories as metaphors, a way of explaining the way things are rather than an actual historical event. They have no problem with science, more or less.
The idea that one must chose between the (narrow, literal) reading of the Bible and science is a false dichotomy. Mr. Brooks and Ms. Johnson do the public a disservice by pretending otherwise. And do you really want to inject religion into science and risk having the specific claims made by religion to fall under the empirical testing of science? Do us all a favor, and stop trying to inject your specific brand of religion into science. Take it as the spiritual guide that it was meant to be, not the science textbook you pretend it is. As the late Pope John Paul II said, echoing Galileo centuries before, "The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
"Bible: sun revolves around the earth (read the account where Joshua asked God to have the sun stand still in the sky while he finished a battle, an indication of an earth-centered solar system). Science; earth revolves around the sun."
ReplyDeleteNot sure I agree with the above statement, but I think you did well.
Love the quote at the end.
agere sequitur credere