Blinkered thinkers
How materialism harms science and society
Editorial
by Don Batten
Sometimes a horse can move suddenly when it catches sight of something unexpected
in the corner of its eye. To minimize this problem, owners fit horses with blinkers
that restrict the field of vision to stop the horse seeing unwanted distractions.
Photo iStockphoto
Modern science operates with the blinkers of naturalism—that science can only
deal with natural causes; it cannot infer a supernatural cause.
Professor of Genetics, Richard Lewontin, wrote, ‘ … we have a prior
commitment, a commitment to materialism. … Moreover, that materialism is
absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’1
A convert from atheism to Christianity, C.S. Lewis, commented on this many years
before Lewontin: ‘Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend
not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice?
Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?’2
Simplistically, evolutionists claim that because we cannot study God—or an
unseen intelligent designer—directly, as under a microscope, God is excluded
from scientific conclusions.
However, science allows an unseen natural intelligent designer to be inferred
from the data, such as in forensic science—for example, an unseen intelligent
designer was responsible for strychnine in the stomach of the murder victim. Inferring
an unseen human intelligent agent is acceptable, but if the evidence demands
a super-natural intelligent agent, that is forbidden.
The more we understand living things, the more their incredible design speaks of
a creative agent far superior to humans
The more we understand living things, the more their incredible design speaks of
a creative agent far superior to humans. The discovery of fibre-optics in the eye
(p. 45 in the December 2008 issue) underlines this point. The problem for evolutionary materialism is not that
the eye is designed, but that it shows far too much design. Because evolution
cannot explain the design in the vertebrate eye, evolutionists resort to a theological
argument against its design. So Richard Dawkins claims it is badly designed, so
‘god’ must not have done it and natural processes must therefore be
responsible (although he really has no idea how). And of course no human could design
a better eye.
Naturalism stifles scientific thinking. Plant scientist Dr Gina Mohammed (p. 38)
says, ‘Many scientists have so internalized the assumptions of evolution that
they don’t realize these beliefs are actually limiting the quality and impact
of their research.’ Blinkered thinking affected her own research.
Blinkered thinking makes for bad education also. Dr Gina Mohammed: ‘Our universities
and schools should encourage students to explore various options for interpretation
if they truly wish to inspire critical thinking.’
Blinkered thinking affects astronomy as it constrains what explanations are acceptable.
If Earth has a special place in the universe, then this solves astronomical mysteries
(p. 37), but the materialist cannot allow Earth to be special.
Blinkers constrain geological explanations also. Denying the biblical Flood results
in incredibly strained interpretations—on how coal formed, for example (p.
48).
The blinkers of materialism also have serious social and political effects that
have led to the deaths of millions at the hands of tyrants like Stalin (p. 52).
Please share this issue of Creation with someone who needs blinkers removed.
Related articles
Further reading
References
- Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review,
9 January 1997, p. 31. Return to text.
- Lewis, C.S., Is Theology Poetry? in The Weight of Glory,
HarperCollins, New York, p. 136, 2001 (published posthumously).
Return to text.
|
