Article Analysis: ‘Resistance to Science’ Has Early Roots
Posted on May 24, 2007
Filed Under Worldview |
Yesterday, I told you that I attempt to develop critical discernment skills in my seminary students by requiring them to analyze current media articles to find their underlying truth claims. This is a valuable exercise, for we can end up unconsciously buying those messages because they are hidden between the lines in the article’s assumptive language. And when you buy a statement, you buy its underlying assumption as well.
So, we thought that it might be fun and interesting to take an article and practically show how all of this works. I pointed you to an article in USA Today (‘Resistence to Science’ Has Early Roots) and asked you to read it and we would compare notes today.
Here we go.
Analyzing the whole article would be beneficial, but since we’re using this as an example from which to learn, let’s just capture the essence of the thing.
First, recognize how to find the article’s premise and conclusions, which get you straight to the bottom line. These are usually in, or near, the opening and closing paragraphs. In our article, the premise, found in paragraph one, tells us a recent study has found that ‘resistance to science’ is rooted in childhood beliefs. The conclusion isn’t hard to find. It comprises the last two paragraphs and begins with “So there you have it.”
But let’s jump to the final statement and confine most of our analysis to what is happening there. Here it is:
“We have to understand the idea that supernatural or religious ideas are not the product of stupidity or malice, but are in fact, normal human nature.”
Now, if this statement were made by itself, we might be thankful for the extension of a small olive branch of tolerance saying that religious ideas are not products of stupidity or malice. This is refreshing in the midst of the aggressive rise of hostile atheism, led by warriors such as Richard Dawkins (“The God Delusion”, etc.) who would state that we ARE stupid for holding religious beliefs.
However, do not be fooled. The bulk of the article has laid the groundwork that these beliefs, and therefore resistance to science, come from thinking like a child. So, there is an underlying assumption in this final sentence that we cannot ignore. Let’s read it again with that truth claim openly inserted (I have placed it in italics).
“We have to understand the idea that supernatural or religious ideas are not the product of stupidity or malice, but are in fact, normal, though childish, human nature.”
It would be wrong to assume that the author believes religious ideas are normal ADULT human nature, because the article clearly leads us to believe that “normal” adults should outgrow these childish notions.
Now, catch what happens next. It is typical, but clever, to sell an assumption like this knowing that buying the assumption will lead to a deeper conclusion. In this case, the deeper conclusion is one that would never be stated outright: that those who hold religious convictions are immature and childish and are resisting the clearly obvious truths presented to us by science, led by the grown-up and mature, who have “struggled mightily to distrust childhood intuition.”
The author is hoping that, by reading his article, we will end up shaking our head and clicking our tongue at the childishness of these immature religious believers, who are foolishly resisting the obvious science of evolution and the agendas behind global warming and embryonic stem cell research. Never mind the reality that evolution has serious scientific evidential problems; that the most promising scientific evidence points to adult stem cell research, not embryonic; and that the hard scientific data doesn’t find man to be the source of temperature fluctuations on the earth or in the solar system.
Don’t get me wrong. The Christian biblical worldview leads us to never fear looking into the telescope or the microscope. All truth, whether it is found in special revelation or general revelation will ultimately agree and not be found to be contradictory. What is lacking today is the willingness of science to examine ALL the evidence and not just that which is conveniently filtered for what are often politically and personally motivated reasons.
Now, the rest of the article is just the filler for this bottom line, tying resistance of science to childish thinking and tying childish thinking to religious notions. It is full of invalid argumentations and secondary assumptions abound, such as “science is always right” and “all resistance to science is wrong” (which precludes any notion of ethical boundaries upon science).
Many of you pointed these things out and I am proud of you for doing so! (Cheri, Janet, Bill, Keri, and especially David…you get a “well done” on your homework!)
Comments
8 Responses to “Article Analysis: ‘Resistance to Science’ Has Early Roots”
Leave a Reply
Comments are moderated and will not appear on deltackett.com until they've been approved. While we are eager to facilitate conversation by publishing most comments, we may withhold one from time to time if we deem it offensive, vulgar, overly personal, cynical, disrespectful, irrelevant, redundant or unnecessarily contentious. While we encourage you not to make others' misspellings and grammatical mistakes an issue of debate, please do your best to double-check your spelling, use correct capitalization, and use proper grammar.
Dr. Del Tackett is president of the Focus on the Family Institute and Senior Vice President to Focus on the Family. He is also the architect and chief spokesperson for Focus on the Family's The Truth Project--a nationwide initiative designed to bring the Christian worldview to the body of Christ.
Subscribe in a reader
© 2008 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.
I thought the main premise was one of materialism. That only the material is real and only science deals with reality,therefore those who “resists” science believe in the unreal. It is interesting how someone can stick a “science” label on an issue and give their viewpoint instant crediblity in our culture.
Thank you for this blog that I have recently subscribed to. In reading the “‘Resistance to science’ has early roots” article, I was struck by the underlying presupposition that Science is the ultimate source of truth - which is really Scientism.
Hello Dr. Tackett,
I would like to share with the following that came to mind as I read the article:
1) This article fuels the notion that children of Christian parents are at a disadvantage when it comes to accepting science since we raise them to have fairy tale beliefs which they stubbornly cling to into adult life due to the trust that they have for us as Chrisian parents. They carry this trust into adulthood and it is seen in their support of those who have similar beliefs and their reluctance to accept science.
As a homeschooling mother, I see these comments as more “reason” or “fuel for the fire” to remove our rights to educate our Children with a Christian worldview.
2)The following comment:
“We have to understand the idea that supernatural or religious ideas are not the product of stupidity or malice, but are in fact, normal human nature.”
Recently, I have come to believe that a natural convergence will occur (and perhaps is already occuring in some circles) between the beliefs in evolution and New Ageism, in that as many believe that we evolved physically and thus are continuing to evolve, that we are also evolving spiritually. Just as it is taught that the embryo goes through certain stages of growth that indicate our evolutionary history, so do our spiritual beliefs through childhood and into adulthood show the “evolutionary spiritual” growth that man has and continues to go through. Christian thinking in this regard is holding the “natural evolution of our spirituality” back, hence the comment that religious ideas, etc. are just normal human nature. It sounds like a bone being thrown our way but really it sets up the question, “How do we help this “human nature” to grow up and accept the reality of science?” Answer: We have to prevent these Christian parents from passing on their beleifs to their children.
Thank you Dr. Tackett for answering God’s call to shed His light on the issues facing all of us in this life.
Sincerely,
Angela
Hi, I am very concerned about the future of the us… I know in Europe Islam is moving quickly… I am passing the truth project on to my daughter, she is going to do this with other college students, she goes to vineyard in Ft. Collins and is a student at CSU.. i think it is important to give these students some tools… thank you for all you do.. looking forward to more talks on Islam… Kathie
Dr. Tackett,
Great assignment! I have tried to show my 13 year old daughter these very same ‘truth’ assumptions in all the TV and media she is exposed to daily. She gets it sometimes, but it takes time and I think a mature grasp of God’s word. I myself have bought into a ‘truth’ without really even knowing it. The subtleness of what we see and read is quite extraordinary.
btw, we have had you in our prayers and I am glad to hear you are recovering! God Bless!
I hadn’t checked your blog in a while. So glad to hear that you are feeling better (even if it is slowly), I am convinced that God is doing amazing things through you.
I love the idea of the homework, I believe that it is a critical skill that is not usually taught. I would agree with your assesment, but even take it further. Not only does he imply that religious ideas are childish and foolish, but he implies that the world would be a better place if we would all just bow down to the great scientists. Don’t believe what you see or feel just trust the scientist. From his perspective scientists are infalible.
Perhaps you could develop a follow up or supplemental course to address the issue of discernment. I am going to be facilitating a class in a month or so and I think I will include this as homework. The article has so many underlying assumptions (I came up with 10)it would be hard not to come up with at least one. I think I will go and try it on my children tonight and see how they do.
God Bless
This article struck me as interesting in that initially there was almost (or at least as close as we’ll ever see to) an admission that we are born with an inherent tendency to seek God. The ideas that we see things as designed and the natural tendency to submit to authority would seem to infer that we are wired to seek God. But he then goes on to say that in order to become “scientifically educated” that scientists have “struggled mightily to distrust childhood intuition”. There is not consideration given to the idea that God might indeed actually exist and that the intuitions are really not misguided and childish.
I am really enjoying the blog and the Truth Project in general. It has really challenged me to look at the world and at the Bible in a very different light. It has also made me begin to think much more critically at what the implications of what the Bible says are and what it means to us as Christians and to the world around us.
Thank you and keep us thinking!
Dale
Dr. Tackett
Thanks for your remarks. I agree that it is inappropriate for scientists to be condescending to those who believe in creation.
I must take issue, however, with your statement that evolution has serious evidential problems. This misunderstanding is disputed by every qualified scientific organization. Studies supporting and building on Evolution Theory have been accumulating for 140 years. It is taught as fact in virtually every Christian college Biology department.
Scientist are not receptive to alternative views, because Evolution was proven long ago, and its detractors have been consistently discredited in their motives, methods and reasoning.
I realize that reconciling Evolution with the Christian worldview can be challenging, but I am sure that as leader of The Truth Project, you would rather not mislead people with this unfortunate but common misunderstanding.
Thanks for your time.