Nature Attacks Religion
A journal that used to lead in reporting scientific discoveries has ventured into the realm of politics, espousing atheistic tenets and ridiculing religious beliefs. Nature released three articles in one week that demonstrate editorial bias and a definite anti-God agenda. The first was an editorial that pitted science against religion, and briefly discussed The Language of God, a new book by theistic evolutionist Francis Collins (see “Building Bridges,” 2006). The author of this article held little back, as he vented:
To many scientists, religious contributions to public debates seem threatening and ill-considered. Religious leaders speak out against entire lines of enquiry—such as work on embryonic stem cells—in the name of God. They take stands against life-saving practices, such as condom use in areas of high HIV infection, in the name of morality.
Such contributions dismay the many scientists who are believers but who take a different doctrinal stance. They also irritate or enrage those (probably comparable in number) who are agnostics and atheists. After all, to many people, including scientists, the world simply makes more sense without the existence of God, and religious interventions are either offensive or irrelevant (“Building Bridges”, 2006).
Religious leaders and some scientists indeed do speak out on embryonic stem cell research because it violates the sanctity of human life. If the author of the editorial had bothered reviewing the archive of Nature he would have realized that embryonic stem cells have not helped cure any disease in humans. We continually hear of their potential benefit, but in peer-reviewed research on humans, the only real success has been shown in adult stem cells. My question to this editor is why be predisposed to “work on embryonic stem cells”? If adult stem cells show promise, then why pursue a scientific method that involves the purposeful destruction of human life?
Additionally, one might ask why promote the use of condoms to prevent HIV when it is a biological fact that abstinence, and God’s plan for marriage, provides a much more effective means of protection. Does the author of this prominent scientific journal desire society to subscribe to ungodly behavior? What should be our standard of behavior? What will be our standard of morality? Surely the educated and intelligent editor recognizes that condoms do not hold the answer.
The author continues:
In response, some scientists are tempted either to publicly dismiss religious belief, or else to argue stridently against it. The latter approach is valuable in that it exposes religious dogmas to rational consideration and leads to their abandonment where they conflict with reality. But it is damaging if it fails to acknowledge the inability of science to deal with many of the issues that people face in their everyday lives (“Building Bridges,” emp. added).
The unstated point is that anyone who holds religious tenets is irrational. Again, maybe this author would do well to look down and see the shoulders of the giants on whom he is standing—because many early scientists professed a deep belief in God. Were these men irrational?
Why does a science journal worry itself with “valuing” the abandonment of “religious dogmas”? Surely readers will not miss the biased atheistic sentiments. This writer desires to pit science against God and the Bible. However, there is no battle. God remains the author of science, and those willing to investigate the evidence will recognize that the data point back to Him.
But Nature does not stop there. Another article, written by Erika Check, also explores the new book by Francis Collins. Check begins her review:
Is it really possible to combine dedication to science with belief in God? In a new book, prominent U.S. scientist Francis Collins sets out his case for combining a strong religious faith with a zeal for the scientific method. But his views have already sparked debate, with critics suggesting that more talk of religion is the last thing that science needs (2006, 442:114, emp. added).
After discussing whether a moral law exists, Check boldly declares:
Many scientists disagree strongly with such arguments. Some suggest that science is on the defensive today—not just in the United States—and that society needs exactly the opposite of what Collins suggests: less talk about faith and more about reason. Religious concerns are largely behind the U.S. law restricting federal funding of stem-cell research, for example. And many feel threatened by the influence of intelligent design in science education (Check, 2006).
The implication is that faith is unreasonable. That statement is far removed from unbiased reporting of scientific data. I would remind Erika Check that “faith,” as she uses the term, is held not only by some religious believers. Consider how much evolutionists depend on their “faith.” There are three scientific hurdles that the evolutionary theory has yet to overcome:
Existence of life from non-life.
Existence of the Universe.
Complexity and design found in nature.
I contend that it is the evolutionist that possesses an unreasonable faith in a theory that has not yet proven how life originated in the first place!
Check then includes several statements from prominent evolutionists. For instance, Richard Dawkins weighs in on Collins’ new book: “I cannot see how this could be good for science—supernaturalism is fundamentally anti-scientific. Scientists work hard at trying to understand. Supernaturalism is an evasion of this responsibility. It’s a shrug of the shoulders.” Thus, Dawkins reduces belief in God to simply an act of shrugging one’s shoulders. He concludes that there might be some reason to try to get along with religious people, but says: “That is a perfectly reasonable political stance, but it has nothing to do with truth.” One might ask to which truth Dawkins is referring? Perhaps the long parade of evolutionary errors that continue to be recycled in students’ textbooks? Or is the “truth” found when alleged “missing links” receive front-page attention when first announced, but rarely any notice when disproved? Or is it the “truth” that evolutionists can’t explain the expansion of the Universe or the characteristic of altruism in humans? To what “truth” does Dawkins subscribe?
The final article is another book review by Crispin Tickell. Tickell evaluates Lewis Wolpert’s new book Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief (2006, 442:137). The opening sentence pronounces that “religious belief can be viewed as an adaptation that was favored as the human brain evolved.” During the discussion, Wolpert argues that science “provides the only fundamental explanation of how the world works” (442:137). And precisely what is the explanation for the original matter of the alleged Big Bang? Maybe evolutionists could explain how memories are stored or why humans laugh or cry. Tickell’s remarks are bold words for a theory with so many unanswered questions.
These blatant assaults on religion should remind us that the material accepted into such journals must conform to their anti-God beliefs. Such militant words are a clear indication that evolutionists are on the defensive. They recognize that evolution does not hold the “only fundamental explanation of how the world works.” Their words are merely a veiled attempt to discount a higher authority—an authority Whom they refuse to obey.
A note to the editors of Nature: Your launch of such caustic anti-God missiles did not go unnoticed. Thank you for showing us your hand.
“Building Bridges” (2006), Editorial, Nature, 442:110, July 13.
Check, Erika (2006), “Genomics Luminary Weighs in on U.S. Faith Debate,” Nature, 442:114-115, July 13.
Tickell, Crispin (2006), “God is Bred,” Nature, 442:137, July 13.