Christianity in Science

It has been said that Christianity is anti-science. This is a false narrative stated for political gain. Christianity is very pro-science as some of the greatest scientists were also priests.

The Christian Faith is not against science. Some Church leaders have been anti-intellectual but that is just part of the fallen nature of man and not the doctrine of the Faith.

With out these scientist priests seeking the mysteries of God’s creation our sciences today would be missing crystallography by the work of Rene Just Hauy. We would be without the Big Bang and expanding universe by George Lemaitre. The works of Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, would be lost to us. Astrophysics and atomic theory wouldn’t be the same without Roger Joseph Boscovich.

Francesco Maria Grimaldi discovered diffraction of light and also worked with the free fall of objects and measured the height of lunar mountains. Even our modern scientific outlook was first formulated by a Priest named Pierre Gassedi. And flight was made possible by the mathematics of aeronautics by Jesuit Priest Francesco Lana de Terzi.

In the 17th Century Jean Picard accurately calculated the size of the Earth. He also developed the standard method for determining right ascension. And Nicolas Steno contributed to the theory of evolution, the start of geology, and modern stratigraphy.

These are just a handful of Priest Scientists who have contributed to science. There are many more that quietly work in the background even today advancing man’s knowledge of Creation and all the wonders that God has given it.

Christianity is not in opposition to science. In fact time and time again science proves the truths of Creation as described in the Christian Faith and holy Word.

It is the sinful nature of man that seeks to corrupt this data and connection. Dating information is inaccurate making the earth appear older than it truly is since God spoke and the whole of the universe was formed at His command. It is man who has pushed Christianity out of science and created the false division between them.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

This past weekend, the Left gathered for yet another anti-Trump march, this time in the name of science. For the past few decades, the Left has tried to paint itself as pro-science by trying to tackle scientific issues, such as global warming/global climate change/global climate disruption/whatever name the Left wants to use this week to hide the fact they were wrong. And if you disagree with them, you’re painted as anti-science and, thus, not intelligent enough to talk to about science. Fortunately, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to read up on the Left’s use of science.

science

What the Left believes it means – an unassailable series of conclusions based on facts and reason

What it really means – an imperfect way to describe what we don’t understand

When you look at the Left’s reverence towards science, it takes on more of a religious experience. Part of this is personal; they want to portray themselves as intellectually superior to everyone else, so they cling to what they think makes them intellectually superior like a baby with a stuffed animal. Another part of this stems from their desire to change reality to whatever they want it to be at a given time.

Let’s take a look at the whole gender issue for a moment. To the average person, there are two genders, male and female. To the Left, gender is fluid and can change by the hour. Their argument? SCIENCE! (All apologies to Thomas Dolby.)

Here’s the problem. Science identifies two genders, while acknowledging there are times when a person is born with extra body parts or with an identity that doesn’t match their gender. That doesn’t make gender fluid or create more than one gender. Those are exceptions to the rule. Sure, they’re deserving of the same rights and considerations we are, but that doesn’t mean we throw away actual science to protect someone’s feelings.

Of course, that’s just one of the ways the “party of science” defies science when it suits their needs. From calling babies in the womb “clumps of cells” to avoid giving them personhood to using flawed computer models as proof of global climate change, the Left has a pretty long track record of being on the wrong side of actual science. So what do they do? They create figures on their side who agree with their ideology.

And the Gaiafather of them all is Al Gore. To hear the Left speak of him, he is ahead of the curve on global climate change. The only way Gore can be considered ahead of the curve is if you grade on one. While he may sound like he knows what he’s talking about, it’s a facade. He relies on the work of others without having any real scientific knowledge to speak of. Remember, kids, this is a guy who couldn’t hack it in divinity school, but he’s going to lecture us on how to be good stewards of the Earth?

There are others, ranging from actual scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson to people who act like scientists like Bill Nye. They’ve figured out what L. Ron Hubbard did: if you want to make the big bucks, start a religion. And the Left is knee-deep in the hoopla, looking to convert people to their faith under any circumstances. Think of it like a really pushy Amway salesman, but with less useful products.

In true Leftist fashion, they are also seeking to change the language to fit their narrative. If you disagree with their position on global climate change, you’re a “climate denier.” Really, who denies there is climate? The issue isn’t that we don’t acknowledge the planet’s changing temperatures; it’s that we don’t agree with your conclusions because the data doesn’t match what you’re saying is happening.

Of course, their stated logic doesn’t apply to themselves. Try calling them “life deniers” if they support abortion on demand and see how well it works. (Spoiler Alert: They take to it worse than a Berkeley student takes to conservative thought.)

Here’s the problem the Left has with actual science: it relies heavily on data and the ability to review what has been done before to see if it still applies. In other words, you have to show your work because it may be wrong. Yeah, that’s going to be a problem because the Left believes their Bizarro version of science is the first, last, and only word. They claim the science is settled when science is never settled. Why? Because humans are fallible.

We make mistakes, sometimes on a small level (like going 125 in a 25 MPH zone), sometimes on a major scale (like flipping off the cops as you go 125 in a 25 MPH zone). When it comes to science, mistakes can mean the difference between a new discovery and being the laughingstock of the scientific community. Scientists are human, too, and they are motivated by the same wants, needs, and motivations non-scientists do. In academia, conformance means cash. If you don’t follow the Leftist line, you find funding, job opportunities, and credibility come in shorter supply than alcohol at the Kennedy Compound. So, to keep the coffers full and to keep being seen as credible, scientists can (and often do) ignore their teaching to conform to the ideology-of-the-month.

And that’s where we find ourselves, post-March For Science. We have people pretending to be scientists taking up signs in a march that has little to do with actual science and more to do with being anti-Donald Trump. After all, according to these geniuses, Trump hates science, so it’s up to the same people who marched for women, gays, albino midgets with speech impediments, and whatever cause they wanted to take up for a weekend to keep science alive.

Here’s the thing. Science existed long before the March For Science, and it will exist long after the marchers have posted on Twitter about how they were marching for science. Sir Issac Newton didn’t need a hashtag and a placard to discover gravity; he just did it. If even 1% of the marchers were serious about the subject they allegedly marched above, they would realize what a layman like me figured out in a few seconds: science doesn’t require a march to exist. It requires people with the curiosity and drive to learn. And, no, learning chants doesn’t apply. If you were truly serious about science, you’d be too busy to march in the first place.

Given who you Leftists idolize, however, I’m guessing you’re not that into science.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Recently, Hillary Clinton tweeted the following:

We’ve got to stand up against climate deniers.
There isn’t a problem we can’t solve if we put our minds to it.
The first problem Hillary needs to address is her bad grammar. But this week’s installment doesn’t have anything to do with English, but rather a concept behind Hillary’s tweet: science. Democrats and Leftists like to portray themselves as the Party of Science, as opposed to the Party of Superstition (according to them, of course). But how much does the Left actually know about science? Let’s find out!

science

What the Left believes it means: a system of proving phenomena in nature in a way that cannot be refuted

What it really means: a system of proving phenomena in nature in a way that can be manipulated by Leftists

The Left loves to throw out science to support their ideological positions as though it were the ultimate shield. Polar bears dying off due to climate change? There’s a scientist for that! GMOs causing human mutations that make the family from the original “The Hills Have Eyes” look like the Von Trapp family? Grab a scientist! Want to prove gun ownership kills more people than Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and playing Led Zeppelin backwards? Look, there’s a scientist!

Or so we’re lead to believe. With climate change alone (a topic I may or may not have covered yet, but I’m too lazy to look right now), we have a number of people with impressive-sounding credentials pushing the notion man is responsible for global warming. Here’s a short list of them.

Neil Degrasse Tyson – Probably the most sciencey of the group, Degrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist and cosmologist, as well as a “science communicator.” And if you’ve read his Twitter feed, he’s also someone who posts more weird crap than Tommy Chong smoking some high grade weed.

Bill Nye – Best known for his 90s TV show “Bill Nye, the Science Guy”, Nye has attempted to beef up his scientific street cred by talking about global climate change. And he has the cred, what with his vast backgr…wait. Nye has a Bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering. Although he worked for Boeing for a time, he has more screen credits than academic credits when it comes to science.

Michael Mann – Mann may rival Degrasse Tyson in academia, but he’s not as well known. Probably for the best, considering he’s one of the masterminds behind the now-discredited “hockey stick graph” and is currently in litigation against Mark Steyn because Mr. Steyn dared to question his scientific prowess.

Al Gore – Yes, Al Gore is considered by the Left to be one of the scientific geniuses because he made global warming/global climate change a thing in Leftist circles. And much of his efforts have been in conjunction with the aforementioned Mann and, thus, have been mocked mercilessly by people who understand real science.

Of course, Leftists will throw out the accusation anyone who disagrees with them is a) ignorant, b) too controversial to be believed, c) dishonest, or d) bought off. You know why? Because Leftists scientists are all of the above.

See, what the Left doesn’t want you to know is their scientists are on the take. Grants from wealthy donors don’t go to scientists who don’t say “the right things.” (Meaning, who don’t subscribe to the Left’s doom and gloom predictions.) And when you get big money from donors, you tend to want to keep it flowing, so you will do whatever they want.

Of course, the Left doesn’t see the problem in this, unless scientists who are more concerned with facts than financial gain start disputing the findings. And it’s not fair that the scientists disputing them are using actual science!

The Left has cornered the intellectual market on science due to its ties to academia. Yet, with all of that firepower, the Left knows next to nothing about science.

Take the Left’s opposition to genetically modified organisms, for example. To listen to the Left, GMOs are an abomination, a step towards the misuse of science out of Mary Shelley’s worst nightmares. Yet, they overlook one simple fact: most crops today are genetically modified. Whether it’s to make plants more disease resistant or to allow them to grow in various conditions, there are ways plants can be modified for the betterment of mankind. So, instead of worrying about Frankenstein’s Farm, the anti-GMO crowd could be learning more about the ways GMOs can be good for people.

Ah, but that would take away from their feels, and when it comes to Leftists, fee-fees trump facts. So, what happens when the facts don’t match up to the fee-fees?

The Left makes up the results it wants. And with the star power (if you’ll pardon the pun) of people like the four people referenced above, it gets harder to overcome.

The thing about science, though, is facts always find a way to win out in the end. Remember cold fusion? Neat idea until no one could reproduce the experiment. It may take a while, but science finds a way to overcome even the brightest smile and the neatest graphs.

And then people like Degrasse Tyson, Nye, Mann, and Gore can get real jobs instead of pretending to be smart.