Answering Scientism

December 12, 2019


Scientism is a core foundational belief for most Americans and other Westerners to some degree whether they are aware of it or not. It has become so pervasive that it has influenced our most basic perceptions. Most Americans would agree that when a scientist says something, people take it much more seriously than they do if a preacher were to say the same thing. In the back of our minds, we know the scientist deals with fact, the preacher deals with faith or “the world of appearance, not… the world of reality.”[1] When a statement begins with, “science has shown…” people will automatically grant it more respect. This is not to confuse science with scientism. Science is great for what it is designed for, but people have unconsciously elevated science to a religion for centuries. Science deserves much respect, however scientism is self-refuting, epistemically defective, and dangerous; a balance of both true science and Christian faith are necessary for an accurate worldview.



Mikael Stenmark describes several varieties of scientism. One type arises when people adopt scientific methodology into fields that are not truly a science at all. Stenmark calls this Methodological Scientism. [2] There is also Academic-External scientism, which is an attempt to expand science, “into non-academic areas of human life (such as art, morality, and religion).”[3] The variety that most people think of when they hear “scientism,” and the focus of this paper, are what Stenmark calls Epistemic Scientism, or the stronger Rationalistic Scientism.

Epistemic scientism is the claim that for any knowledge to be genuine, it must be scientific knowledge. In Roger Trigg’s words, “Science is our only means of access to reality.”[4] Anything “beyond the reach of scientists cannot count as knowledge.”[5] Then there is the stronger Rationalistic scientism, which goes even further by saying that it is actually irrational to believe anything that is not accessible to science. J. P. Moreland combines the epistemic and rationalistic scientisms into what he calls Strong scientism in which, “science and its methods provide the only fully valid route to gaining knowledge… to the exclusion of other methods and disciplines.”[6] Moreland then introduces what he calls, “weak” scientism, wherein science is not the only rational knowledge; weak scientism affords, “minimal rational status” to truth claims other than from scientific sources.[7] However, weak scientism “still implies that science is by far the most authoritative sector of human knowing.”[8] Both points of view quite naturally (and often explicitly) exclude anything spiritual, since of course nothing supernatural is scientifically testable. Thus, all forms of scientism have their roots in some mixture of naturalism and/ or secularism.


As with most words, definitions of science vary according to usage. For purposes of this study the term “science,” unless otherwise noted, will mean what Ian Hutchinson calls, “Natural Science”[9]—the systematic study of “physical reality.”[10] Scientific studies typically employ some version of the well-known “scientific method.” In his book, In Defense of Scientism, Byron K. Jennings, a nuclear physicist, argues that science is simply “model building.”[11] Not just any model will do, he asserts, but true science is “Model-dependent realism,” a term he credits to the late Stephen Hawking and Lenard Mlodinow, wherein “our theories, laws, hypotheses are models, models for how the universe works. Nothing more and nothing less.”[12] It is important to include this definition because many people today have expanded the term, “science,” to include many things that do not fall under the classical definition of science such as, “Social Science, Management Sciences… Decision Sciences, Family and Consumer Sciences… even Computer Science.”[13]

Leaders in these disciplines were forced to include the term “science” in order to be taken seriously. As Hutchinson explains, “If science is all the real knowledge there is, as scientism says, then a self-respecting academic department better be sure that its discipline is understood to be science.”[14]


This is not naturalism as in the study of nature, but Merriam-Webster’s definition number two: “a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance specifically: the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.”[15] Since life to a naturalist arrived by accident, most naturalists adopt various tenets of evolution. They believe most or all of the claims that the universe is billions of years old, that life spontaneously arose from non-living elements into a very simple form, and then progressed into more complex life forms, step-by-step, all the way up to humans. The creatures who acquired these changes were more likely to survive to produce offspring, so the changes became permanent, and eventually became new species. This is the vaunted “survival of the fittest” or “natural selection.” Naturalism, by nature, is in effect a godless religion. It is a religion because it makes metaphysical claims, even though it rejects the supernatural. Plantinga explains that,

Naturalism tells us what reality is ultimately like, where we fit into the universe, how we are related to other creatures, and how it happens that we came to be. Naturalism is therefore in competition with the great theistic religions: even if it is not itself a religion, it plays one of the main roles of a religion. Suppose we call it a “quasi-religion.” [16]


Secularism is an epistemology that either ignores or downright rejects any religion or “religious considerations.”[17] Gil Anidjar wrote an essay about the secularism of Edward W. Said (1935-2003), a professor and political activist. Anidjar spoke of those who believed that Said was hostile toward religion, while others believed he was simply indifferent—he simply left discussion of religion to “scholars of religion.” [18] To Said, the important thing is not what is going on in the religious sphere, but what really matters is what is going on at the secular or worldly level. Secularism is not a worldview or metanarrative as such, it is simply a perspective that disregards anything metaphysical. Not so with scientism.

Scientism is a Religion

Like naturalism, epistemic and rationalistic scientism (hereafter, simply “scientism”), are an entire worldview in which no truth is genuine if it cannot be proven through science. Jennings, a scientist defending scientism, agrees that religion supplies, “answers to the basic questions of how the universe originated, how people were created, what determines morality…. Science is now slowly but surely replacing religion as the framework to answer these questions.”[19] Jennings even realizes that, “many of the claims that science is not a religion come across as a claim that science is The One True Religion.”[20]

Jennings also sees that, “science presents an alternative to religion as the basis for a person’s worldview.”[21] This is a danger to the church because now religion, even subconsciously in the minds of Christians, is seen as subjective. Therefore, in the eyes of scientism, religion’s truth claims are either meaningless or downright irrational.

Richard Dawkins, one of the world’s most infamous scientismists (believer in scientism), would not agree with Jennings; he objects to hearing his scientism called a religion. He writes, “I hear myself often described as a deeply religious man… [things like,] ‘he waxes ecstatic about nature and the universe. To me, that is religion!’ But is ‘religion’ the right word? I don’t think so.”[22]

Understandably, scientismists and scientists generally do not like mixing metaphysics with their science. It is certainly not in the scientists’ field of expertise; and in order to follow scientism faithfully, one would have to be agnostic or atheist. However, at least some scientists such as Byron Jennings realize that, “Unfortunately, metaphysics can never be completely eliminated.”[23] He is correct; one can never get away from metaphysics because to dispense with metaphysics of course requires metaphysics.[24] This, coupled with the fact that their belief does not include a supernatural god may explain why they do not see that scientism is truly a religion. However, scientism has all the characteristics of a religion. A supernatural god is not required (cf. Taoism, Buddhism, Pantheism). Even a cursory look will show that religions have a variety of characteristics.

All religions can affect our way of life, ways of thinking, our behavior, our perceptions of this life, perceptions of the future, and of the afterlife (or lack thereof). Bertrand Russell writes, “In religion, and in every deeply serious view of the world and of human destiny, there is an element of submission, a realization of the limits of human power…”[25] Followers of any faith will typically have a sense of awe, wonder, and reverence, and “a sense of vastness and mystery.”[26] Mary Midgley explains, “It is rather the sense of having one’s place within an ordered whole greater than oneself, one whose larger aims so enclose one’s own…”[27]

Midgley further points out that most religions include some sort of moral code, with reward (“pie in the sky”[28]) or punishment in this life and/ or after death (Karma, Nirvana, Heaven, Hell). Most have rituals. Most are evangelistic (attempts to win or coerce people to the faith). All have some sort of explanation for the existence of the universe and of life. Hinduism teaches that time is a never-ending cycle; likewise Buddhism does not attempt to explain origins, because to them the universe has always been here, and always will be. Most have prophecies (predictions and warnings for this life), and some have apocalyptics (predictions for the end). Islam and Judaism have all of these. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism also believe in providence—that God or Allah provides for their needs in life. Christianity has all of these except (barring Catholicism) the ritual. Many also have apologetics, which are “large-scale, ambitious systems of thought, designed to articulate, defend, and justify their ideas.”[29] What may come as a surprise—especially to its followers—is that scientism also has all of these features except perhaps, like Protestantism, the ritual.

Scientism’s creator is naturalism: unimaginable luck and evolution. Scientism offers prophecies—predictions for the future. William Day, a molecular biologist, author of such books as, A New Physics, and a book subtitled, The Photonic Origin of Matter, also wrote a book entitled, Genesis on Planet Earth: The Search for Life’s Beginning. In this book Day writes, “Evolution… is essentially a development of intelligence. Therefore, humanity can be expected to evolve in the future a new, distinct, and much more intelligent type, which will then become ‘reproductively isolated’.”[30] In other words, human intelligence will one day evolve until we become new creatures that he calls, “Omega man.” Day predicts that this transformation will only require about 10,000 years because, “Man will make him.”[31] William Day is not an isolated case.

In Christianity, God solves all problems; for scientism, technology solves all problems. Scientism’s “providence” is technology. As Richard Williams explains, “Scientism exudes and promotes an exaggerated confidence in science… to produce knowledge and solve the problems facing humanity.”[32] Nuclear physicist Ian Hutchinson calls this phenomenon Technopoly or “applied scientism.”[33] This is where a society “looks first, and sometimes only, for a technological fix for every challenge that confronts it.”[34] A quick glance through recent headlines will show that people expect science to be able to fix anything.

Scientism’s “pie in the sky” is the future bliss, after science and technology cure all of the world’s woes. Sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson writes, “When mankind has achieved an ecological steady state, probably by the end of the twenty-first century, the internalization of social evolution will be nearly complete… Cognition will be translated into circuitry… Having cannibalized psychology, the new neurobiology will yield an enduring set of first principles for sociology.”[35]

Scientismists have a form of morality. Sam Harris “argues that ‘morality can and should be integrated with our scientific understanding of the natural world.'” [36] Dawkins admits to a moral code, which supposedly evolved for the survival of the race. This code, which Williams rightly describes as “a severely impoverished, strictly utilitarian, moral landscape,”[37] includes altruism to family and allies, and “do no harm.”

Then there is faith. Scientists and scientismists operate in faith. Newton operated in faith, as did Einstein. Marcelo Gleiser, a professor of Physics and Astronomy writes, “To go beyond the known, both Newton and Einstein had to take intellectual risks, making assumptions based on intuition and personal prejudice.… knowing that their speculative theories were necessarily faulty and limited.”[38] Physicist Byron Jennings calls it science’s Nicene Creed, wherein they expect that “Patterns observed in the past enable us to predict what will happen in the future.”[39] Midgley writes, “Faith as such is not an alternative to science, nor the enemy of science; it is a necessary part of it.”[40] Scientismists of course put their faith in science.

Science even has an apocalypse: the heat death of the universe. Recent followers have apocalypses even closer to home: man-made global warming. Historically, there was also global cooling, a hole in the ozone layer, nuclear holocaust…

Richard Dawkins is quite an eloquent writer. It is a shame that there is no space to include his description of the sense of awe and wonder that he and his friend experienced as children. His friend reminisces about being, “under the stars, dazzled by Orion, Cassiopeia and Ursa Major, tearful with the unheard music of the Milky Way, heady with the night scents of frangipani and trumpet flowers in an African garden.”[41] Anyone who has ever watched Carl Sagan will undoubtedly feel Sagan’s sense of awe and wonder of the universe. Dawkins writes, “All Sagan’s books touch the nerve-endings of transcendent wonder that religion monopolized in past centuries. My own books have the same aspiration.”[42]

Naturally, when a person feels such strong emotions, he or she wants to share it with the world. Dawkins is certainly no exception. All of his writings are clearly evangelistic in nature. Geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) was also, “chiefly concerned with how best to make converts.[43] Delfino writes, “there is an ‘evangelical’ nature to the new atheism, ‘which assumes that it has a Good News to share, at all cost, for the ultimate future of humanity by the conversion of as many people as possible.'”[44]

The idea that scientism is a religion is not new. In fact, Caspar Hakfoort tells of Wilhelm Ostwald (1853-1932), a Professor of Physical Chemistry who deliberately made scientism into a religion back in the early 1900s after he had won a Nobel Prize. His intention was not only to combat the church, but also to replace it.[45] Ostwald even went so far as to write, “more than a hundred weekly ‘Sonntagspredigten‘ (Sunday ‘Science-based’ sermons).”[46] His peers looked askance at his ideas, but he managed to create a very systematic scientistic theology that was, “striving towards a unified science of nature; its use as the basis for an all-embracing philosophy; and the effort to realize this philosophy in practice, as a secular religion to replace Christianity.”[47] He actually did not invent this idea, but his scientistic theology was, “exceptional in its combination of breadth, clarity, and explicitness.”[48]

Finally, like most religions, Richard Williams concludes that, “Scientism entails a zealous metaphysical commitment and a requisite orthodoxy in method and in thought regarding the nature of the world and how understanding of the world is to be approached.”[49] Plantinga, perhaps donning kid gloves, calls naturalism a “quasi-religion.”[50] Plantinga is correct; nature is naturalism’s god. It is also Dawkins’ and most other scientismists’ creator god. Using Christian terms, science is prayer—how they access their god—and nature is the god. Dawkins calls himself an atheist. However, from what we know about scientism, and by his own definition, Dawkins is a pantheist because he writes, “Pantheists don’t believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings.”[51]

This godless religion is dangerous and has several serious flaws. First, it is logically self-refuting.

Scientism Is Self-refuting, but That Does Not Seem to Daunt Its Adherents

As we have seen from the definitions, scientism believes that only what is testable by science can be true. The problem with that idea is simple. In order to prove that statement, it would require a scientific experiment of some sort. However, there can never be a scientific experiment that can test everything. Truth and falsity are metaphysical concepts that can only be argued by using metaphysics, not science. As J. P. Moreland says, “The irony is that strong scientism is a philosophical statement, expressing an epistemological viewpoint about science; it is not a statement of science, like ‘water is H2O.'”[52] Williams describes another weakness with their philosophy, in that it automatically blinds them to any other possible source of truth. He writes, “Within scientism then, questions are framed in terms of this particular metaphysical perspective… Therefore, a scientistic science can only produce results compatible with or affirming of the same metaphysical commitment it started with.”[53] Therefore, it is impossible to live consistently within the scientistic worldview because it requires invoking ideas from outside of science to defend it (which of course is not permitted). Sometimes it forces question begging, circular reasoning or other logical fallacies. Moreland writes of a conversation he had with a man who attempted to argue with him about scientism. Moreland finally had to interrupt him after a few minutes and say, “Sir, you have made thirty to forty assertions in the last few minutes, and as far as I can tell, not one of them can be quantified, measured, and scientifically tested in the laboratory.”[54] Professor Steven Pinker had the same problem. Williams explains that Pinker,

[S]loughs off the criticisms leveled against scientism, and then invokes the very kind of thinking that has prompted the criticisms… [He] assures his readers that science simply pursues intelligibility and not reductionism, and concludes that science, as he describes it, provides the best foundation for belief, morality, and essentially all human endeavors.[55]

Williams explains the circular reasoning thus: “If science really is all good thought, then science is not distinguishable from any other worthwhile intellectual endeavor, and it contrasts only with that which is deemed nonsense. But… It leaves unanswered how one is to decide what is nonsense. If [the answer] is ‘by scientific method,’ then the circular argument reaches closure”[56] Therefore, scientism is indefensible. Since their claims can never be proven scientifically, then their claims are simply the same conjecture and opinion that they complain about in other fields. Scientism is not only indefensible logically, but it is powerless to explain just about anything of importance adequately.

Refusing to Admit Anything Spiritual Forces Them to Place Faith in Countless Wild Theories

Missing Links

Steven Pinker believes science has proven that, “There is no such thing as fate, providence, karma, spells, curses, augury, divine retribution, or answered prayers.”[57] He further believes, along with many evolutionists, that all life today branched out like a tree from a single organism. However, every single branch is imaginary—not one branch of this evolutionary “tree” has ever been found to this day. He further believes that humans evolved from an ancestor common to the apes, but that ancestor has never been found—even after over 150 years of frantic searching through rose-colored glasses.

Multiverse, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy

Due to the absurdly infinitesimally small odds of the universe having spontaneously spawned the earth and its life, someone came up with a theory of a “multiverse.” The idea is that an infinite number of universes, somewhere, somehow, would allow enough combinations/ permutations to make the odds of spontaneous life reasonable. Furthermore, since the venerable science of physics cannot explain how the universe has not collapsed on itself, or spread out like a fireworks display never to coalesce into stars, they are forced to come up with “dark matter” and “dark energy.” None of which are observable or measurable in any fashion, yet somehow they consider them to be science—hence truth. These of course, are not provable by science using any definition, yet they consider them superior to any other source of knowledge.

Appropriate Approximation

In fairness to true science, scientists know for a fact that they cannot even begin to prove anything, much less everything. Jennings is a physicist, and is defending scientism, yet readily admits that, “Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.”[58] He explains that, “One never has direct experience of things, the so-called noumenal world; what one experiences is the phenomenal world as conveyed to us by our senses. What we see is not even what has been recorded by the eye. The mind massages the raw observation into something it can understand; a useful but not necessarily accurate model of the world.”[59] He further says that, “Science is the art of the appropriate approximation,”[60] Norman Geisler writes, “Even empirical scientists recognize the limitations of the scientific method, since it can only deal with observable phenomena. It begs the question in favor of materialism to assume that there is nothing beyond the observable.”[61] Jennings agrees that, “Excluding anything by fiat is poor methodology.”[62] Science cannot explain why the universe exists, but is also powerless to describe many other things.

Scientism Cannot Explain Many Undeniable Facts

Due to entropy, the unalterable Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the universe cannot have always been. It must have had a beginning in some finite past, because energy is continuously changing from one form to another, and at some point in the distant future, the universe will reach a thermodynamic equilibrium. All of the useful energy will convert to heat, and the universe will die a heat death. If the universe had always been here, this would have already happened. Therefore, how did it get here? Science only offers fanciful theories.

Consciousness and Morality

Science cannot explain consciousness. There are various theories about how an adequately complex arrangement of neurons in the brain might fire just right, so that the creature becomes self-aware. However, none of the theories work because consciousness does not even require the person to be alive! There are many documented near-death experiences (NDE) where brain-dead people come back and tell of events that happened in the hospital and elsewhere, while they had no brain activity.[63] Pim van Lommel is a cardiologist and he studies Near-Death experiences. He writes that,

It is a scientific challenge to discuss new hypotheses that could explain the possibility of a clear and enhanced consciousness—with memories, self-identity, cognition, and emotions—during a period of apparent coma. The current materialistic view of the relationship between consciousness and the brain, as held by most physicians, philosophers, and psychologists, seems to be too restricted for a proper understanding of this phenomenon.[64]

These near-death experiences are not imagination or wishful thinking among the decedents because even children have them and, “The content of an NDE and the effects on patients seem similar worldwide, across all cultures and all times.”[65]

Science cannot explain objective morality. There are theories, such as Dawkins’ survival of the species idea, but thoughtful naturalists admit that there is no reason to believe that random firings of neurons can arrive at objective truth. Morality assumes free will. For a person to be held accountable for a moral action, they must have had a choice in the matter. A brain with nothing but random axons firing cannot be considered to have a will, because it is strictly at the mercy of biochemical processes. A car cannot be blamed for a wreck; it has no moral choice. Even if there were a mechanical failure, such as a blowout, the car cannot be morally responsible. Sam Harris, a neuroscientist and new atheist writes, “All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge… you are no more responsible for the next thing you think (and therefore do) than you are for the fact that you were born into this world.”[66] Delfino realizes that, “Even if quantum events are random, I will not be free if my actions are caused by quantum events over which I have no control.”[67]

Irreducible Complexity

Darwin’s self-admitted defeater is irreducible complexity. In his famous Origin of Species (PF Collier & Son: 1902 [Original, November, 1859]), p. 255), Darwin writes, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Much to Darwinists’ dismay, however, nature is rife with irreducible complexity—there are countless features in nature that must have “evolved” simultaneously to have any function at all.


DNA contains vast amounts of very complex and very precise information (even the DNA of “simple” life forms). DNA is segmented into genes, which begin and end with markers called promoter and terminator regions. Somehow a protein called RNA polymerase knows just which gene needs to be replicated. It attaches itself to the promotor region. When it binds, it separates the two strands of DNA. The polymerase then slides down the DNA, unwinding the section of DNA, copying its information to create a “Messenger RNA” strand, which coils out of the polymerase like a tail. When the polymerase reaches the terminator region, it stops, detaches from the DNA (which it reassembles as it goes along), then the newborn messenger RNA goes off to have some non-coding segments removed and its ends capped. After this, the messenger RNA somehow “knows” to exit the cytoplasm to be translated into a protein. The messenger RNA also has start and stop regions called codons. Once outside the cytoplasm, one part of the polymerase attaches to the start codon. A “Transfer RNA” molecule brings a specific amino acid to the messenger RNA. Once the amino acid attaches to the start codon, the rest of the polymerase joins with the already attached subunit, and Transfer RNA molecules begin ferrying more amino acids to the polymerase, which assembles a specific polypeptide chain, which then goes off to be modified as needed.[68] The idea that somehow the information in DNA, along with the gene marker segments (which is very complex, and must be perfect) to arise by accident is preposterous. And the DNA by itself is useless without the magnificent little polymerase (it is also is impossible to imagine how this incredibly smart precision machine came to exist by accident). Worse yet, polymerase’s job of unwinding the DNA would be futile if the transport RNA did not “know” the correct amino acids to bring, and then to bring them in the correct sequence… and all of this would be futile if the newborn messenger RNA did not know where to go and how to get there. Furthermore, all of this unimaginable machinery had to “evolve” at once with no margin for error if even the simplest life is to exist.

How Eyes Can See

In the eye, light travels through various layers that all have crucial functions, back to the retina at the back of the eye. Even the iris is important because it closes and opens to admit the correct amount of light, “affecting a wide range of optical processes.”[69] David Atchison and George Smith explain that “the retina, which is an extension of the central nervous system… is connected to the brain by the optic nerve.”[70]

Atchison and Smith further explain that the pressure inside the eye must be higher than the surrounding atmosphere so that it retains the correct shape. This pressure is maintained “by the production of aqueous fluid in the ciliary body and by drainage of this aqueous fluid from the eye… to the canal of Schlemm…”[71] In the back of the retina are receptor cells known as rods and cones. Atchison and Smith explain, “the rod system has very high sensitivity to light but poor spatial resolution. In contrast, the output of fewer cones is combined, so the cone system functions at higher light levels and is capable of higher spatial resolution.” [72] The eye discerns color by using three different kinds of cones, each sensitive to different wavelengths.

Encyclopedia Britannica explains that there are three different types of “ganglion neurons” in the retina, called X, Y, and W cells.[73] The X, Y, and W cells connect to the optic nerves, which carry “sensory nerve impulses from the… ganglion cells of the retina toward the visual centres in the brain.”[74] The optic nerves are actually bundles of nerves, which are attached to the back of the eye, and carry the “signal” to the brain. Oddly enough, the brain’s visual cortex is in the back of the brain (one might think that the visual cortex would “evolve” right behind the eyes). Nevertheless, the two bundles of optic nerves cross in the middle of the brain. At the point where the two cross, called the optic chiasm, the nerve bundles split off. About half the nerve fibers continue to the opposite side of the brain, the other half continue on to the same side of the brain that the eye is on. The effect enables three-dimensional vision.[75]

Once the nerve fibers reach the visual cortex, a few split off to other parts of the brain. For example, some proceed to the brain stem to give it the information it needs to control the size of the pupil. Those that go into the visual cortex split off into various regions. Some go into the collicular pathway to detect movement and the direction of gaze.[76] Some go into a region that provides “visual acuity.”[77] Some regions in the cortex analyze the direction of movement; some are “excited by a dark line on a bright background and others by a light line on a dark background.”[78] Some are “activated by rectangles and others by stars.”[79] Then there are color-sensitive neurons, and some that are activated by white light. The list goes on and on. Some neurons are idle when there is nothing to worry about, but fire when there is something important to see.[80] Every section is highly specialized, and it would appear nothing was left to chance. There are even cells whose entire function it to discern, “a line or an edge moving in one direction and [are] silenced when it changes direction.”[81] The point of all this is to show that all of these features had to evolve AT THE SAME TIME. What natural selection benefit could have come from a partially evolved eye? Even fully “evolved” eyes can have difficulty seeing, as anyone who wears glasses can confirm. What benefit could arise from a fully evolved eye without an optic nerve, or if the nerve entered into a partially evolved visual cortex? This does not even cover how the brain processes, analyzes, and remembers what is seen.

Science Makes a Feeble God

As we have seen, some concepts are not even accessible by science. Furthermore, things such as the laws of mathematics and morality have stronger claims to truth than does any scientific experiment. Mathematicians cannot even decide what mathematics is. Einstein said that, “The series of integers is obviously an invention of the human mind, a self-created tool which simplifies the ordering of certain sensory experiences.”[82] Everyone knows that if a person has two rocks in one hand and two in the other, he or she has four rocks. Not even a child would have to set up a scientific experiment to know this. Furthermore, most civilized people know that it is not right to torture babies for fun. People have proposed ideas how we came about this altruism, but they all fall short if there is no accountability.

In addition, science is powerless to evaluate, much less fix anything of real importance, such as love or beauty, war or hate. In fact, when used outside the scope of its purpose, it can be downright destructive. History has proven to the world that a cold, calculating scientific paradise is not possible, and is in fact evil. Marxism removed all emotions and ultimate accountability and slaughtered or starved millions of civilians. The idea of a scientific paradise also led to the horrors of eugenics that still survives today.

Scientism Endangers All Humanity

Roger Olson writes, “The twentieth century has been called the genocidal century. Its horrors forced reexamination of the Enlightenment’s optimism about inevitable progress through reason.”[83] Scientism tends to lead to a cold, callous, pragmatic view of life. In order to consider such concepts such as love and human compassion, it would have to appeal to metaphysics—concepts outside the sciences. Under scientism, people become little more than statistics; if they get in the way of progress, they must be removed. This is not science fiction, merely a theory, or “what if” scenario, but has happened and continues to happen in real life.

G. K. Chesterson lived in the early 1900s when England was beginning to practice eugenics. Eugenics is the brainchild of Charles Darwin’s cousin—a British statistician named Francis Galton. Eugenics was an effort to improve the quality of life for the entire human race by using the principles of the new science of genetics. The original idea was to discourage or prevent people with undesirable traits from reproducing (the negative form of eugenics), and to encourage people with more positive traits to reproduce among each other (the positive form), much like breeding livestock. This idea quickly caught on, and as Philippa Levine explains, laws were enacted “By the first decade of the twentieth century…. prohibiting marriage among ‘mental defectives’ and permitting their sterilization.”[84]

These were the sort of laws that G. K. Chesterson wrote about when he chided “The Feeble-Minded Bill.” This was the nickname he gave a bill in which British Parliament had made a step toward making eugenics law by broadening Britain’s “Lunacy Act” of 1890. Lunacy would now include,

persons who though capable of earning their living under favourable circumstances… are nevertheless… incapable of managing their affairs with proper prudence… which is exactly what all the world and his wife are saying about their neighbours all over this planet.[85]

In other words, Chesterson objected that by using this definition, anyone could be judged imprudent, thus a lunatic and potential victim of eugenics. The “feeble-minded bill” itself failed, but a similar bill passed shortly after World War I. Chesterson explains that its proponents succeeded in pushing the bill through, in part, by avoiding presenting its victims as human. They did this by using language, “which suggests that things are dead things; that things have no souls. Thus they will not speak of waging war…. they speak of the ‘outbreak of war,’ as if all the guns blew up without the men touching them.”[86]

Eugenic practices caught on worldwide in a very short time. Levine further explains, “This trust in the universal power of science made eugenics an international movement and not one limited to Western countries.”[87] Both positive and negative forms spread globally in varying proportions. The negative form sometimes even allowed for euthanizing the undesirables. Hitler immediately passed eugenics laws when he took power in order to “‘purify’ the German population.”[88] The Nazi party passed a compulsory sterilization law in 1934 making it law that people with certain conditions deemed to be hereditary were to be sterilized. Then in 1935, Hitler passed laws prohibiting the marriage of Jews to non-Jews. This was not just Germany; entire races were deemed unfit to reproduce in other countries, too. For example, Sweden forcibly sterilized the Tattare people. Eugenics was also very popular in the United States where the policy was considered “harmless and humane.”[89] In one 1937 poll, 84% of Americans favored sterilizing the mentally ill. Involuntary eugenic sterilization laws were enacted in the U.S. as early as 1907, and remained on the books (and in use) until the 1970s and 80s. For example in California, more than 20,000 were sterilized; Virginia sterilized 8,000 and North Carolina nearly 7,000.[90]

Angela Franks reports that Planned Parenthood (PPFA) was a child of eugenics, and even today its leaders (if only subconsciously) still think in terms of eugenics—even racially motivated eugenics. Although African-American women are less likely to believe in abortion, Planned Parenthood aborts three times more black babies. Furthermore, a former employee of Planned Parenthood reports, “‘There was a strong eugenics mentality that exhibited disdain, discomfort, and ignorance toward disabled babies.’ That mentality is what drives the acceptance by PPFA of ‘search and destroy’ abortions, in which amniocentesis is used to target unborn children who have disabilities.”[91]

One must wonder how such an inhumane concept like eugenics could take hold and spread so quickly. Philippa Levine, a historian formerly at USC, now at the University of Texas in Austin writes, “What set eugenicists apart was their belief that it was science, and specifically the science of heredity and genetics, that would be the key to the betterment of the human race.”[92] Richard Williams rightly shares a concern with many about the dangers of “over-reliance on and overconfidence in science as the source of knowledge regarding all aspects of human life and, ultimately, all human problems.”[93] Truly if morals are merely pragmatic as Dawkins asserts, and these morals evolved to promote the survival of the fittest, it has produced a barbaric standard of morality.


Some people are satisfied with the explanations that science proposes for the existence of the universe and life. The atheistic “Freedom from Religion Foundation” quotes actor Bruce Willis who said,

Organized religions… were all very important when we didn’t know why the sun moved, why weather changed, why hurricanes occurred, or volcanoes happened. Modern religion is the end trail of modern mythology. But there are people who interpret the Bible literally. Literally![94]

Christians are often accused of invoking “the God of the Gaps,” in which if anything is inexplicable, we simply attribute the event to God or some superstitious or mythical explanation. Some believe that since science is closing the gaps by explaining many natural phenomena, we no longer need to invoke God. However, J. P. Moreland argues that “even if the gaps in naturalistic scientific explanations are getting smaller, this does not prove that there are no gaps at all.”[95] Actually though, Moreland gives science more credit than it deserves. It is all gaps. As we saw previously, there is no way for naturalism to explain the ultimate origin of anything much less ever hope to explain everything.

Marcelo Gleiser, the physics and astronomy professor admits that, “‘What happens after we die?’ is one of those questions every parent hears, and most struggle to answer.”[96] So what does happen to us when we die? If the atheists/ naturalists are correct, there is a funeral, we get buried and that is that. However, it should be becoming clear that naturalism has no plausible answers, and leaves many serious questions. What if they are wrong? If the Hindus are correct, we may come back as some animal. However, if the big three monotheistic religions are correct, all will face judgment and punishment or reward—for eternity. Would a parent be considered a responsible parent if he or she taught their children that their actions have no ultimate consequences? In light of all the above arguments, what would be the responsible answer to Pascal’s Wager?[97]

Scientism is Dangerous to the Church

J. P. Morgan explains that scientism is in the very air we breathe. It pervades every aspect of contemporary Western thought. He says that, “we consider it both normal and essential,” and that “It puts Christian claims outside of the ‘plausibility structure’,” and has even changed “how our culture processes reality.”[98] Christian beliefs are now seen as “not just untrue, but unworthy of rational consideration.”[99] Even many Christians’ core beliefs are based upon the idea that science provides “fact”, and that faith is merely a subjective preference. Faith, historically, was considered to be trusting in what we know, but today has been replaced with “blind faith”—believing something even if there is no evidence for it. Therefore, if a Christian accepts scientism, they are unable to defend their faith, because of course scientific “fact” trumps “faith.” Biblical truths are no longer perceived as Truth. They may be true for you, but they are not scientific truths, and are therefore meaningless or even absurd. This thinking is a foundational belief of nearly everyone in the “first world” (or westernized world, if you will).

Scientism has infected Christians’ worldviews, and therefore determines their presuppositions. Even the highly respected Christian philosopher, William Lane Craig, believes the universe is billions of years old.[100] There is nothing in the Bible that hints that the universe is anything approaching a million years old. It is true that Archbishop Ussher’s dating of 6,000 years is most likely wrong. He used genealogies, which probably did not list every single ancestor, but tended to include mostly the most prominent. However, there is no plausible way to reconcile Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 with even a million years. The “Gap theory,” which proposes that there was a long period of time (gap) between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, has been soundly refuted.

A billion is almost impossible for the human mind to grasp. Imagine one inch denotes one year. Using that scale, Bishop Ussher’s 6,000 years is not even 1/10th of a mile. Fifty thousand (the lifespan of Carbon-14) is a large number—50,000 inches is about ¾ of a mile. A million inches is a little less than 16 miles—about the distance from the Dallas Cowboys’ Stadium to the Fort Worth Water gardens. A billion inches, however, is from Dallas to Perth, Australia… and halfway back! Furthermore, billions of years are not even necessary unless a person is trying to reconcile how vast numbers of small incremental changes in life forms progressed from amoebas to zoologists. It is difficult to imagine that a man as brilliant as Craig would have ever dreamed of 4.5 billion years if it were not for the ubiquity of scientism.

One more danger to the church is that many of scientism’s believers are openly hostile toward Christianity. One needs only to see the list of books that Richard Dawkins wrote to understand just how he feels. The God Delusion (2006), How to Prove God does not Exist (2012), Outgrowing God (2019). Dawkins is not famous for having civil discussions about God, as evidenced by his book The God Delusion, where he entitled Chapter 8, “What’s Wrong with Religion? Why Be So Hostile?” And he begins Chapter 2 with this allegation:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.[101]

Scientism is Dangerous to… Science?

Oddly enough, scientism is dangerous to science itself. Science is based upon the idea that objective truth can be found by performing experiments and the like. However, scientism pulls the rug out from under science in its most fundamental presumptions. First, since all knowledge can only be acquired through science, presuppositions are automatically disallowed because presumptions are philosophical in nature, and not subject to the methods of science. Second, is that scientism is bound to its own naturalistic perspective. In naturalism’s theory of natural selection, an organism stands the best chance of surviving when it adopts better faculties. These faculties are generally understood to be random. A mutation occurs, and when it facilitates the organism’s ability to survive and reproduce, the adaptation/ mutation becomes a part of the gene pool; if not, it dies off. Natural selection cannot select for the truth of a situation, only its success. A gazelle can survive because it perceives a lion nearby and flees. It is not necessary for the gazelle to come to any sort of accurate belief about the lion; all it needs to know is it is time to go elsewhere as quickly as possible.

The idea of true beliefs is a real problem under scientism. Since scientism is limited to natural explanations, there are really only two ways to account for beliefs. Both require that a creature’s nervous system has become sophisticated enough that its perceptions acquire “content,” and become beliefs. “I believe that is a lion; I think I’d better run.” The brain is nothing more than a large collection of neurons, connected in such a way that when one “fires,” it triggers other neurons in succession. These patterns of firing do not require that the patterns reveal truth, only that it promotes the creature’s survival. In Plantinga’s words, “natural selection is interested, not in truth, but in appropriate behavior.” [102] Charles Darwin, himself, recognized this problem, and other non-theists such as Nietzsche, Nagel, and Stroud all recognized that, as Plantinga reports, “(naturalistic) evolution gives one a reason to doubt that human cognitive faculties produce for the most part true beliefs.”[103] Plantinga calls this “Darwin’s Doubt.” The problem with the idea that our cognitive faculties produce true perceptions is the randomness that evolution is based upon. Considering this randomness, Plantinga gives the odds of any given thought being true as 50/50. However, people generally have more than one thought. If a person has 1,000 thoughts at the 50/50 ratio, then the odds of at least 75% of the thoughts being accurate is 1 in 10-58 (one in ten to the negative 58th power).[104] Such a number is a mathematical absurdity; therefore, it is absurd to think that naturalism and evolution could be depended upon to produce true beliefs. Since most people (including—or even especially—the proponents of scientism) intuitively trust their beliefs to be at least mostly reliable, scientism has a problem.

Theism and Science Combined Give a More Solid Grasp of Truth

Science is unable to answer the most fundamental questions of our existence. Scientific “facts” are always changing, therefore in which scientific truth-of-the-day do we place our trust? Scientism attempts to answer metaphysical questions with naturalistic explanations that are self-defeating, circular, and have many other serious logical fallacies. Scientists cannot agree on many things, so which scientist are we to believe? It is true that Christians may not agree on some interpretations, but the Bible itself is consistent in its core doctrines. Theism is not forced to dream up any number of implausible schemes to stay afloat.

History and archaeology strongly support Biblical truths. Jesus’ resurrection is one of the best-attested events in ancient history, and all of the theories that attempt to debunk it fail. Disregarding Bart Ehrman’s unsuccessful attempt to overthrow it, the “trilemma” (made famous by C. S. Lewis), is probably the strongest argument for Jesus’ divinity that anyone has ever used. Jesus claimed to be God incarnate. There are only three possible explanations: Either Jesus was crazy, He was lying, or He is God. Ehrman claims that the fourth possibility is that Jesus was “legend,” but sources are centuries too early for legend to have developed.[105] The sources, even outside the Bible are too varied, and some of the sources were hostile with no motive to help fabricate a legend.

Science is great for what it does best, but it makes a poor idol. The best solution is not to separate science from faith as Immanuel Kant hinted in the late 1700s, but to combine them where they naturally overlap. As Francis Bacon (1561-1626) suggested, “let no man, upon a weak conceit of sobriety or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God’s word or in the book of God’s works; divinity or philosophy.”[106] God wrote both “books”—scripture and nature—and each for its own purpose. Science can do what it does best: research. And religion can explain the existence of the things that science attempts to study. Religion can concentrate on metaphysics. Science can keep an eye on religious doctrine, as did Galileo; and religion can keep an eye on science.


Epistemic Scientism claims that the only way to arrive at true knowledge is through science or science’s methods. Scientism has extended science far beyond its limits, to the point that it uses science to explain concepts that science is incapable of answering—to the point that scientism has become a religion. Scientism has all the trappings of a religion except a supernatural god, which is not required for religion, anyhow (cf. Animism, Pantheism, Buddhism, etc.). Science is great for what it does, but it is a poor god. It cannot explain how the universe got here, nor can it explain many things that mere chance cannot possibly produce, such as DNA transcription. In fact, it is downright dangerous to humanity because it removes the most important things, such as love and emotions, from its attempted solutions. It is dangerous to the church because it has infiltrated even believers’ thinking to the point where even in their minds, science is fact, and biblical truths are just one subjective choice among many. A carefully balanced blend of biblical teachings and scientific observations is the best way to get an accurate view of life.


Albert, Daniel M., and David M. Gamm. Optic Nerve — Britannica Academic. November 1, 2007. (accessed October 26, 2019).

Anidjar, Gil. “Secularism.” Critical Inquiry 33, no. 1 (Autumn 2006): 52-77.

Astika, Made. “Historicity of the Resurrection: A Theological Approach of Evidence of the Resurrection of Christ in the New Testament.” Jurnal Jaffray 10, no. 1 (2012): 1-21.

Atchison, David A, and George Smith. Optics of the Human Eye. Oxford: Elsevier, Ltd., 2000.

Britannica Academic. Human Nervous System — Britannica Academic. March 27, 2019. (accessed October 26, 2019).

Chesterton, Gilbert Keith (G. K.). Eugenics and Other Evils Illustrated. Kindle. London: Feedbooks, 1922.

Craig, William Lane. #605 Hermeneutical vs. Scientific Young Earth Creationism. November 18, 2018. (accessed September 25, 2019).

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Kindle. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2006.

Delfino, Robert A. “The Failure of New Atheism Morality.” Studia Gilsoniana, July-September 2015: 229-240.

Franks, Angela. “Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood: The Eugenics Connection.” National Right to Life News 31, no. 7 (2004).

Geisler, Norman L. “Scientism.” In Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, by Norman L Geisler, 702. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.

Gleiser, Marcelo. The Island of Knowledge: The Limits of Science and the Search for Meaning. Kindle. New York: Basic Books, 2014.

Hakfoort, Caspar. “Science deified: Wilhelm Osstwald’s energeticist world-view and the history of scientism.” Annals of Science 49, no. 6 (1992): 525-544.

Hutchinson, Ian. Monopolizing Knowledge: A scientist refutes religion-denying, reason-destroying scientism. Kindle. Belmont, MA: Fias Publishing, 2011.

Jennings, Byron K. In Defense of Scientism: An Insider’s View of Science. Kindle. Byron K. Jennings, 2015.

Levine, Philippa. Eugenics: A Very Short Introduction. Kindle. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.

McGraw-Hill Animations. DNA Transcription and Translation. June 2, 2017. (accessed October 26, 2019).

Merriam-Webster. Naturalism | Definition of Naturalism by Merriam-Webster. n.d. (accessed September 25, 2019).

—. Secularism | Definition of Secularism by Merriam-Webster. n.d. (accessed September 25, 2019).

Midgley, Mary. “Evolution as a Religion: A Comparison of Prophecies.” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 22, no. 2 (June 1987): 179-194.

Moreland, J. P. Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology. Kindle. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018.

Olson, Roger E. The Journey of Modern Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013.

Plantinga, Alvin. Knowledge and Christian Belief. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2015.

—. Where the Conflict Really Lies. Kindle. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Stenmark, Mikael. “What Is Scientism?” Religious Studies 33, no. 1 (March 1997): 15-32.

van Lommel, Pim. “Near-death experiences: the experience of the self as real and not as an illusion.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1234, no. 1 (October 2011): 19-28.

Williams, Richard N., and Daniel N. Robinson, . Scientism: The New Orthodoxy. Kindle. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015.

Willis, Bruce, interview by George Magazine. (July 1998).

[1] Alvin Plantinga, Knowledge and Christian Belief. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2015), 3.

[2] Mikael Stenmark, “What Is Scientism?” Religious Studies 33, no. 1 (March 1997), 16.

[3] Stenmark, “What Is Scientism,” 18.

[4] Stenmark, “What Is Scientism,” 19.

[5] Ibid., 19-20.

[6] J. P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 29-30, Kindle.

[7] Ibid., 30.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ian Hutchinson, Monopolizing Knowledge: A scientist refutes religion-denying, reason-destroying scientism, (Belmont, MA: Fias Publishing, 2011), 301, Kindle.

[10] Marcelo Gleiser, The Island of Knowledge: The Limits of Science and the Search for Meaning, (New York: Basic Books, 2014), 266, Kindle.

[11] Byron K. Jennings, In Defense of Scientism: An Insider’s View of Science, (Byron K. Jennings, 2015), 290, Kindle.

[12] Jennings, In Defense of Scientism, 569-573.

[13] Hutchinson, Monopolizing Knowledge, 310.

[14] Hutchinson, Monopolizing Knowledge, 317-319.

[15] Merriam-Webster, Naturalism | Definition of Naturalism by Merriam-Webster, n.d. (accessed September 25, 2019).

[16] Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 311, Kindle.

[17] Merriam-Webster, Secularism | Definition of Secularism by Merriam-Webster, n.d. (accessed September 25, 2019).

[18] Gil Anidjar, “Secularism,” Critical Inquiry 33, no. 1 (Autumn 2006), 54.

[19] Jennings, In Defense of Scientism, 656-657.

[20] Ibid., 654.

[21] Jennings, In Defense of Scientism, 660-663.

[22] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2006), 33.

[23] Jennings, In Defense of Scientism, 303.

[24] Richard N. Williams, “Introduction.” In Scientism: The New Orthodoxy, edited by Richard N. Williams & Daniel N. Robinson, 1-22, (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), 3.

[25] Mary Midgley, “Evolution as a Religion: A Comparison of Prophecies.” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 22, no. 2 (June 1987), 191.

[26] Midgley, “Evolution as a Religion,” 190.

[27] Ibid., 189.

[28] Ibid., 180ff.

[29] Ibid., 189.

[30] Midgley, “Evolution as a Religion”, 180.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Richard N. Williams, “Introduction.” In Scientism: The New Orthodoxy, edited by Richard N. Williams & Daniel N. Robinson, 1-22, (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), 6-7.

[33] Ian Hutchinson, Monopolizing Knowledge: A Scientist refutes Religion-denying, Reason-destroying Scientism. (Belmont, MA: Fias Publishing, 2011), 2895, Kindle.

[34] Hutchinson, Monopolizing Knowledge, 2784.

[35] Midgley, “Evolution as a Religion”, 187.

[36] Robert A. Delfino, “The Failure of New Atheism Morality,” Studia Gilsoniana, July-September 2015, 230.

[37] Williams, “Introduction”, 17.

[38] Marcelo Gleiser, The Island of Knowledge: The Limits of Science and the Search for Meaning, (New York: Basic Books, 2014), 8.

[39] Jennings, In Defense of Scientism, 1726.

[40] Midgley, “Evolution as a Religion”, 185.

[41] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2006), 31.

[42] Ibid., 32-33.

[43] Midgley, “Evolution as a Religion”, 191.

[44] Delfino, “The Failure of New Atheism Morality”, 229.

[45] Caspar Hakfoort, “Science deified: Wilhelm Osstwald’s energeticist world-view and the history of scientism.” Annals of Science 49, no. 6 (1992), 528.

[46] Ibid., 527.

[47] Hakfoort, “Science deified,” 528.

[48] Ibid., 529.

[49] Williams, “Introduction”, 3.

[50] Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 311, Kindle.

[51] Dawkins, The God Delusion, 39-40.

[52] Moreland, Scientism and Secularism, 52.

[53] Williams, “Introduction”,  3-4.

[54] Moreland, Scientism and Secularism, 54.

[55] Williams, “Introduction”, 13.

[56] Ibid., 14.

[57] Williams, “Introduction”, 7.

[58] Jennings, In Defense of Scientism, 863.

[59] Ibid., 892.

[60] Ibid., 926.

[61] Norman L. Geisler, “Scientism.” In Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, by Norman L Geisler, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 172

[62] Jennings, In Defense of Scientism, 1189.

[63] Pim van Lommel, “Near-death experiences: the experience of the self as real and not as an illusion,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1234, no. 1 (October 2011), 20.

[64] Ibid., 19.

[65] Ibid.

[66] Delfino, “The Failure of New Atheism Morality”, 231-232.

[67] Ibid., 232-233.

[68] McGraw-Hill Animations, DNA Transcription and Translation, June 2, 2017,  Accessed October 26, 2019,

[69] David A, Atchison and George Smith, Optics of the Human Eye, (Oxford: Elsevier, Ltd., 2000), 4.

[70] Atchison and Smith, Optics of the Human Eye, 4.

[71] Ibid.

[72] Ibid, 6.

[73] Britannica Academic, Human Nervous System — Britannica Academic, last modified March 27, 2019, accessed October 26, 2019.

[74] Daniel M. Albert and David M. Gamm, Optic Nerve — Britannica Academic, last modified November 1, 2007, accessed October 26, 2019,

[75] Atchison and Smith, Optics of the Human Eye, 9.

[76] Britannica Academic, Human Nervous System.

[77] Ibid.

[78] Ibid.

[79] Ibid.

[80] Albert and Gamm, Optic Nerve.

[81] Britannica Academic, Human Nervous System.

[82] Gleiser, The Island of Knowledge, 245.

[83] Roger E. Olson, The Journey of Modern Theology, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 295, Kindle.

[84] Philippa Levine, Eugenics: A Very Short Introduction, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 2-3, Kindle.

[85] Gilbert Keith (G. K.) Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils Illustrated, (London: Feedbooks, 1922), 298-304, Kindle.

[86] Ibid., 568.

[87] Levine, Eugenics: A Very Short Introduction, 7.

[88] Ibid., 10.

[89] Levine, Eugenics: A Very Short Introduction, 65.

[90] Ibid., 64.

[91] Angela Franks, “Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood: The Eugenics Connection,” National Right to Life News 31, no. 7 (2004).

[92] Levine, Eugenics: A Very Short Introduction, 63-64.

[93] Richard N. Williams, “Introduction.” In Scientism: The New Orthodoxy, edited by Richard N. Williams & Daniel N. Robinson, 1-22, (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), 2-3.

[94] Bruce Willis, interview by George Magazine (July 1998),, Accessed November 17, 2019.

[95] J. P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 169, Kindle.

[96] Marcelo Gleiser, The Island of Knowledge: The Limits of Science and the Search for Meaning, (New York: Basic Books, 2014), 11.

[97] “Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God [exists]… If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.” Accessed December 12, 2019

[98] Moreland, Scientism and Secularism, 31.

[99] Moreland, Scientism and Secularism, 31-32.

[100] William Lane Craig, #605 Hermeneutical vs. Scientific Young Earth Creationism. November 18, 2018, (accessed September 25, 2019),

[101] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2006), 51, Kindle.

[102] Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 316, Kindle.

[103] Ibid.

[104] Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies, 333.

[105] Made Astika, “Historicity of the Resurrection: A Theological Approach of Evidence Of The Resurrection of Christ in the New Testament,” Jurnal Jaffray 10, no. 1 (2012): 14.

[106] Hutchinson, Monopolizing Knowledge, 3502.

WordPress Themes