Defining Science to Exclude Cosmic Purposefulness

Image of the Helix Nebula (NGC 7293)“The evolutionists know the threat posed by creationism, and they have always defined science since the days of Darwin to exclude cosmic purposefulness. Science is ‘true’ science, in their view, only when pre-human cause and effect are seen as purposeless. To admit that creationism might be valid, or might be an alternative explanation of origins, is to deny the fundamental presupposition of modern science. In other words, the scientists recognize the exclusive and exclusionary nature of their intellectual endeavor — an endeavor designed to shove God out of the universe of cause and effect.”

~ Gary North, “Intellectual Schizophrenia”, in James B. Jordan (ed)., The Failure of the American Baptist Culture (Tyler, TX: Geneva Divinity School, 1982), p. 18, emphasis in original.

Source: http://biblicallandmarks.com/wpl/creation-versus-evolution/

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Defining Science to Exclude Cosmic Purposefulness

  1. The described position isn’t science, it’s naturalism. Many folks hold to naturalist philosophy while doing scientific investigation, but the presupposition that there is only natural causes or purposelessness isn’t pure science. It’s naturalism. Thanks for the great post. Just wanted to offer a picky, minor disagreement. Otherwise, it’s awesome.

    • Actually, I agree with you that North isn’t as clear as he could be in this quote. It IS naturalism disguised as science, as you rightly point out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s