I read an article today that asks "Why doesn't America believe in Evolution?". From the first paragraph, the author implicitly states his opinion that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is a backwards nut-job (as if you didn't get this from the title of the article). I don't mention this article here to defend it or to refute it; afterall, I do believe in evolution. I mention it because of its negative tone pointed - decidedly - at religion.

I must stop here and give the author credit for pointing out that many Christians regard the Biblical account of creation as a metaphor (though I would call it a myth or didactic fiction). I also feel, however, that maybe he is a little hard on "fundamentalist" Christians. I can't believe I'm about to stand up for right-wing fundamentalists (*shudder*), but I think the author really is missing the mark by insinuating that people who believe in creation are stupid or backwards. Couldn't it be that these people just have a very strong belief that differs from our own? Are they causing you harm by believing in creationism?

Further, the author quotes someone else referring to people who are undecided on the topic as "people that can be reached". So all of the rest are getting cut off? Also, the author and the people quoted refer to "battles" between creationists and evolutionists. Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Can you, Mr. Evolutionist, prove to me how we got here? No, you can not. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that you're shouting your position from a lofty and unstable place. I'm also not saying that creationists aren't doing the same thing. In both cases, we need something more.

Here's another article that I found today. This one talks about the oldest "computer" ever found. "Computer" is really stretching the definition to its most basic (i.e. "computer" = something that computes, as opposed to the more recent definition of an electronic device that runs software). Anyway, regardless of what you call it, it is an amazing feat and we should be impressed that something made in 80 B.C.E. 1) was so technologically advanced and 2) survived to this day.

Scientism-ists are probably frothing at the mouth to say "See what Science can do?!". However, I feel that this is a perfect example of the failure of Science. The techniques that were used to make that device as well as the knowledge needed to engineer it are simple today, but at the time it was something special. Whatever happened to that knowledge? It sank on a ship and wasn't found for almost 2100 years!

Anyway, all of this isn't very well reasoned, but I wanted to point out that the original author's article was poorly written. There was a far better way to approach that topic and present the data that it contained.

Ok.... my sermon is over.

I came across an article today (it's rather old now) from a person who is glorifying Scientism. This bothers me a bit as I can't imagine someone willfully embracing this idea. I always thought people who leaned too much on reason (in lieu of a balance between reason, feeling, and emotion) practiced Scientism on accident. Now, I learn that people actually WANT to practice Scientism! Here is a link to the article. You can judge for yourself.

The author of the article defines Scientism as "... a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science."

So, by implication, this person wants to define love as a certain balance of chemicals, and explain what is right and good by assigning mathematical values to certain decisions (or worse, leaving it up to the politicians!!), or define compassion as simple utility.

This is all very dangerous. If we try to define our world, our emotions, and our ideals as simple mathematical equations then we are nihilistically flattening all of these realms into one and - effectively - destroying all but one of them. Don't read too much into this, but this very thing was Hitler's mistake. He thought about his idea of utopia and never stopped to think if he should implement it! If we run around making decisions about things that are clearly not in the realm of Science, then we are falling into the same trap (OK, I feel obliged to say that I'm not saying Scientism-ists are as bad as Hitler, just that they are making the same errors). If we try to use purely scientific terms to answer questions that start with "Should I...?" then we will always come up with the wrong answer.

Also, how are we to measure ethics in a world of Scientism? Are we to assign units of measure to pleasure and pain? Let's call the pain units "dolors" and the pleasure units "hedons". Therefore, I do not want to cut off my finger with a rusty saw because it would mean a higher dolor count than hedon count. Is this your idea of a good ethical system?!

Well, guess what? It's already been done! (Incidentally, this is where we get the word "hedonism"). Science clearly has no place in ethics, morals, or spirituality.

Keep your hands on your side of the car, Science.