#8. So does science prove its theories? There are certainly some things that science (as opposed to logic and mathematics) can prove and has proved—that the chemical formula for water is H2O, for example, or that the average distance of the moon from the earth is about 384,500 km. But these are basically facts about our world. The big scientific questions concern notions about the origins of the universe, the nature of force and matter and perhaps the biggest question of all: is there a Grand Unified Theory that can explain everything? We can give to these questions good answers that we believe can be justified from the best evidence at our disposal. But we can’t give a final answer because we know that what scientists believe today may not be what scientists believe in the future. No wonder standard scientific textbooks rightly emphasize that ‘science rests on faith’.19 (pp. 76–77).
Science cannot prove its theories when they do not deal with the truth. The secular scientist cannot create their own unified theory of everything because there already is one—In the beginning God created…- and anything that the secularist proclaims as a unified theory will be in error for they are describing something that did not take place.
The evidence at our disposal supports Genesis 1 not any other alternative but then evidence can be manipulated to say anything if you are good enough. The best answers available come from the bible not from unbelieving scientists.
#9. In the end, science is about giving us reasons for believing that certain things are true, while at the same time insisting that we realize that future generations may rightly want to challenge these beliefs. That’s why science is so successful: it’s willing to change its mind in response to new evidence. But what about things that lie beyond the scientific method? (p. 77).
We have discussed this before, the truth never changes thus if science is changing its mind, it also may not be changing to the truth. They may simply be exchanging false information with more, but new false information.
Changing one’s mind is not necessarily a good thing, especially when one opts from the truth to what is false.
#10 The New Atheism is great at anti-religious rhetoric, but it’s yet to show that it can put forward a positive and defensible alternative to faith-based values (p. 79).
Anyone who has had discussion with atheists will realize and know that the unbeliever offers nothing to the world. Atheists are great at removing hope, removing salvation, removing kindness and other good things that God offers. Only God offers what is good and only God offers us salvation. There is nothing else that is superior than God.
#11 I find myself in broad agreement with the conclusions of Sir Peter Medawar (1915–97), who won the Nobel Prize in medicine for his work on immunology. Medawar draws a distinction between ‘transcendent’ questions, which he thought were best left to religion and metaphysics, and questions about the organization and structure of the material universe. Medawar insists that it’s ‘very likely’ that there are limits to science, given ‘the existence of questions that science cannot answer, and that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer’.29 Medawar makes it explicitly clear that he has in mind questions such as: ‘What are we all here for?’ ‘What’s the point of living?’ These are real questions and we’re right to seek answers to them. But science—if applied legitimately—isn’t going to help. We need to look elsewhere. (p. 80).
I think that quote speaks for itself and makes the point without help from us.
#12 In the New Atheist world-view, as we’ve seen, science is about what can be proved to be true whereas religion is about running away from the facts and seeking consolation in outdated, discredited and immoral Bronze Age myths. (p. 81).
The unbeliever and atheist has it backwards. They are the ones running from the truth not the true believer. We also do not follow Bronze Age myths, but the words of God as Jesus said we live not by bread alone but by God’s word (paraphrase).
The labels the atheist place upon biblical teachings and books mean nothing and have no impact on their veracity. The ‘facts’ that the atheist have are not facts at all and when one scrutinizes them closely they will see how fictitious those ‘facts’ are.
The atheist should not complain that the believer ‘seeks consolation’ in the bible for at least the believer has something and someone to find consolation and help. The atheist has no one and nothing to help them; they really should think twice about throwing stones and look at the glass house they reside.
#13 For example, Christopher Hitchens regularly asserts that people believed the earth was flat because of religious dogma. It’s a puzzling assertion as historical scholarship long ago showed that virtually every Christian scholar of the Middle Ages acknowledged the sphericity of the earth.32 Some of them were even able to calculate its approximate circumference. The urban myth that religion demanded a flat earth is now known to have developed in the late nineteenth century, and it’s really time to give it up! (p. 81).
What Dr. McGrath leaves out is that the flat earth idea originated with the ancient Greek and Babylonian scientists not their religious people nor the Jewish people eof the Ot or the Christian of the New.
The Bible does not and has never taught that the earth was flat.
#14 The perception that science and religion were at war with each other was not, as some New Atheist writers seem to think, the result of the Darwinian debates. It actually arose later in the nineteenth century through highly polemical popular works such as John Draper’s History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew White’s History of the Warfare of Science with Theology (1896). Through shrewd manipulation of the historical evidence these passionate books portrayed noble, honest, objective and heroic scientists as victims, struggling to defend the truth against odious, manipulative and repressive Catholic clergy. (pp. 81–82).
You cannot expect honestly, sinlessness and other godly attributes and traits form those who reject God and his ways. The unbeliever is under the control of evil and evil deceives not tells the truth.
It is naïve to think that those who are blind and deceived have access to the truth when they do not have and are not able to receive the spirit of truth. We believers have access to the spirit of truth and we should make full use of him so that we will not be led astray by the atheist manipulation and dishonesty.
#15 The relation of science and faith changed decisively in the later twentieth century. Although New Atheist propagandists regularly declare that scientific advance and progress has eroded the case for belief in God, the facts are otherwise.
The first decades of the twentieth century were dominated by a scientific belief in the eternity of the universe. It had always existed. Religious language about ‘creation’ was seen as mythological nonsense, incompatible with cutting-edge scientific knowledge. (p. 84).
Scientific advances have done nothing to erode belief in God. Science has faile din the areas where God succeeds. Science cannot cure aging, death, provide eternal life or anything else that God provides. God bring victory over death, victory over disease, even victory over aging (when we enter heaven), so science has done nothing but deceive people and remove the very thing people need.
‘Cutting edge scientific knowledge’ is nothing but false teaching. Science cannot change the truth nor reinvent what took place in the past. All secular science has to offer is destruction and we see it not just in the spiritual realm but in the physical one as well as secular science is responsible for mustard gas and other poisons; bombs, guns, bullets, weapons of mass destruction and so on.
Science is not as pure as some like to make it seem.
#16 But things have changed since 1948. During the 1960s it became increasingly clear that the universe had an origin—the Big Bang.42 Though this idea was met with fierce resistance by some atheist scientists of the day, such as the astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, who was worried that it sounded ‘religious’, happily this prejudice was overwhelmed by the evidence in its favour. And it’s an undeniable fact that the new understanding of the origins of the universe resonates strongly with the Christian doctrine of creation.(p.85)
But that is what cults and other false teachers and con men do. They make their point of view close to the truth, include some truth with their lies then deceive people.
To fool people correctly, you need to have some of the truth mixed in with your falsehoods or the people will see through the game. Secular science is no different for since it excludes and does not want God the only thing they can produce is lies and false ideas.
Yes they can stumble across parts of the truth but that is not enough to make up for the lies they tell the world. Secular science does not follow God but evil and we know that there is no truth in evil.