Our critic this week is Jake who is upset that I supposedly denounce science.  Have a look at his message (in purple text) along with my comments.


Hello Jake,

Jake: You make my head spin. You simultaneously use science to make your point and then denounce it when it disagrees with your scripture.

Dr. Lisle: I do use science to make many points.  But where have I ever “denounced” science?  On the contrary, I endorse the scientific method for testing truth claims involving the consistent and repeatable present operation of the universe.  I expect such consistency because God has promised to uphold His universe in a consistent way for our benefit (e.g. Genesis 8:22, Jeremiah 33:25).  On what basis do you justify the scientific method?  I reject pseudoscience such as flat-earth, astrology, neo-Darwinian evolution, and deep time because none of these things can be demonstrated by the scientific method or justified by any rational reasoning.  But I endorse all things that can be empirically demonstrated in the present by observation and experimentation.

Dr. Lisle: Second, what makes you think that science disagrees with Scripture?  On the contrary, the Bible is the basis for science.  There is nothing that is actually testable and observable in the present that is contrary to Scripture.  Can you think of any?

Jake: If you don’t “believe” in science it’s awfully hypocritical of you to reap all the benefits it’s provided mankind.

Dr. Lisle: I do believe in the scientific method since it is predicated on the truth of the Bible.  But if you reject the truth of the Bible, and therefore have no basis for justifying the scientific method, then isn’t it rather hypocritical of you to reap all the benefits it has provided mankind?

Jake: Your beliefs are dangerous and ignorant to such a degree that I have to believe your trolling.

Dr. Lisle: If people are just chemical accidents, why be concerned about what is supposedly “dangerous?”

Jake: There is of [sic] evidence, peer reviewed to refute all of your claims.

Dr. Lisle: For example?  If there is peer-reviewed evidence to refute all of my claims, then why didn’t you provide any?  Did you know that the scientific evidence presented at the Biblical Science Institute is peer-reviewed?

Jake: I know this is falling on deaf ears…

Dr. Lisle: Then why did you bother writing?

Jake: …so I won’t waste anymore of your time or mine, but seriously “Dr”, you are extremely uneducated and there is no place for this superstition in today’s society.

Dr. Lisle: You consider a Ph.D. in astrophysics to be “uneducated?”  What would you consider to be “educated?”  If I may ask, what is your Ph.D. in?  However, I do agree that superstition is bad for society, particularly the superstitions of evolution and deep time.  Superstition is defined as “a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation.”  That fits Darwinian evolution perfectly.  Think about it; it is based on ignorance (it was invented before any knowledge of genetics and DNA, etc. all of which contradict it), fear of the unknown (God, afterlife, etc.), trust in magic (chemicals somehow became living all by themselves with no forethought or planning), or chance (the very process supposedly leading to the mutations that build organisms), or a false conception of causation (nothing supposedly caused everything).

Jake: That is all.

Dr. Lisle: Thank you for your comments.