Tuesday, July 29, 2014

On Science and Religion (St. Luke of Simferopol)

By St. Luke the Surgeon, Archbishop of Simferopol (1877-1961)

"When we examine contemporary science as developed by scientists such as Lamarck and Darwin, we see the antithesis and I would say the complete disagreement that exists between science and religion, on topics that concern the more basic problems of existence and knowledge. For this, an enlightened mind cannot accept at the same time both one and the other and must choose between religion and science."

A well known German Zoologist, Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), who was a good follower of Darwin, wrote these words some 65 years ago in his book The Riddle of the Universe, that was very successful and, as it seemed, had proved that faith is absurd. So says Haeckel, that every enlightened man must choose between science and religion and should follow either one or the other. He considered it necessary that such men should deny religion because a logical man cannot deny science.

Monday, July 21, 2014

The History of the Word "Scientist"

Dr. Melinda Baldwin from Harvard University wrote a short yet fascinating and timely history of the word scientist and its association with the discipline of science titled "The History of 'Scientist'", a term historically more controversial than most would think.

Here are some excerpts from Baldwin’s piece:

Friday, July 18, 2014

The Limits of Knowledge Completed Through Faith

By His Eminence Metropolitan Nicholas of Mesogaia

Research is intoxicating. Our world is made with unimaginable beauty and wisdom. It is worth discovering both of these things as much as possible. Simply it must be done with the humility of a man, not the audacity of a pseudo-god. One must compromise within limits.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

What "Inherit the Wind" Was Really About

By Cornelius Hunter

After the 2005 Dover trial, Judge John Jones recalled that he “was taken to school” by the evolutionists. It was, Jones recalled, “the equivalent of a degree in this area.” Unfortunately what evolutionists such as Ken Miller “taught” Jones was a series of scientific misrepresentations (which you can read about here, here and here). But these were not the only misrepresentations that made their way into American jurisprudence in the Dover trial. For the judge did not enter into his new training as a complete novice. As Jones later explained, “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind.” It would be like a judge explaining that he already understood the general theme of tornado damage because he’s seen The Wizard of Oz. This level of profound ignorance, in such a position of power, is disturbing to say the least. The key question is: How could this happen? How could our educational system fail so badly? What is the source of such anti intellectualism? The answer, once again, is evolution.

Sunday, July 6, 2014

Intelligent Evolution and Alfred Russel Wallace

Alfred Russel Wallace was born on January 8th of 1823 and was a contemporary of Charles Darwin. He was a pioneering naturalist who discovered thousands of new species and conceived the most important theory in biology independently of Charles Darwin: Evolution by Natural Selection.

He wrote:

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Atheist Admits There Is No Evolutionary Explanation for Consciousness

Russel Wallace, a biologist of Darwin's era, argued that the human consciousness should be exempted from the iron rule of evolution, in which Darwin responded in a letter written to Wallace, "I hope you have not murdered too completely your own and my child". Darwin believed that human consciousness was very much a part of the evolution of the brain, thus dissolving any illusion of man's authorship, creativity or understanding, and yet no convincing evidence has ever been offered to support this notion. Thoughtful atheists admit that the materialist Darwinian process of natural selection cannot account for the human consciousness. Atheist philosopher and physician Raymond Tallis, who said: "You won't find consciousness in the brain", wrote the following in The Philosophers Magazine in 2009:

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Patristic Views on the Nature and Status of Scientific Knowledge

By Dr. Jean-Claude Larchet


The subject I have chosen to deal with brings up some methodological problems which need to be examined.

The first problem has to do with the idea of “scientific knowledge” and therefore of “science” itself. In this presentation, we understand the word science, a priori, in its modern, ordinary sense, that is, the commonly accepted definition: “knowledge of phenomena and their laws,” a rational, rigorous, coherent knowledge which, from the methodological point of view, implies in principle three stages: 1) observation, 2) formation of a hypothesis, and 3) verification of the hypothesis which in the case of the first and third stages can take various forms both direct and indirect.

The modern idea of science did not exist in the Fathers, designated by that word. The Fathers designated what corresponds to it rather as a certain kind of knowledge which uses the senses and reason and which deals with the realm of nature considered in its appearances.