Category Archives: fakenews

The punch up of science and religion?

Science and Religion


Throughout my thirty years in the ordained ministry I have always been surprised at the number of people who are baffled by how I can be both scientist and clergyman. Many are convinced that the two must conflict and this is as common among Christians as non–Christians. Once a liberal bishop asked me how I could be an evangelical and a geologist! In England, as in America, there is a deep–seated perception that science and religion are in conflict and one must choose one or the other.

Thus we need to ask two separate, but related, questions. First we need to ask what the actuality is. Have Christianity and science always conflicted in the past and do they conflict today? And if so, then how? And secondly, we need to ask what the perception is of the relationship of science and Christianity.

Now let’s look at one example and ask questions both about actuality and perception. From there we can consider other examples as well and consider the relationship over the last half a millennium. This example is of Christopher Columbus in 1492 shortly before he sailed across the Atlantic. Every high school student knows that theologians advised Columbus that he could not sail around the world because it was flat and he would sail off the edge. The common account is that Columbus had great difficulty in persuading the Roman Catholic theologians in Spain that the earth was spherical. The theologians were adamant that the earth was flat. However in the end the heroic Columbus persuaded the King to let him try despite the theologians. Off Columbus sailed and he landed in the New World and returned to tell the tale. The atmosphere of the whole incident is evoked by Joseph Chiari’s play Christopher Columbus (1979);

Columbus; The earth is not flat, Father. It’s round!

The Prior; Don’t say that!

Columbus; It’s the truth; it’s not a mill pond strewn with islands. It’s a sphere.

The Prior; Don’t say that; it’s blasphemy.


This perception is very deep–seated among people of all ages and education, but the actuality was very, very different. Only about two theologians in the previous thousand years believed in a flat earth. So where did this story come from? The writer Washington Irving fabricated it when he wrote a biography on Columbus in 1828. In this he included a long account that the sphericity of the earth was condemned at the Council of Salamanca. What a creative author! The truth is that the Council of Salamanca never occurred, but it was reported in the two classic works on the conflict of science and religion by Draper and White and has been repeated ever since. It is a prototypical example of an urban myth and most people in Britain and America believe it to be true. The actuality is that no theologian challenged Columbus about a flat earth. But the perception of what is true about Columbus is utterly false, and perniciously encourages the idea that science and faith are at loggerheads.

The perception that science and faith are mutually exclusive has had and continues to have a disastrous effect on our churches today. Rather than being simply a double bind, it is a triple bind as this perception militates against Christianity in three different ways.

First, it makes Christians very suspicious of science because they believe science intends to disprove the Bible, which encourages many to believe that if one studies science in-depth it may destroy a person’s faith. As far as the myth of Columbus goes this unsettles Christians and makes them doubt whether or not Christianity can be true.

Secondly, it makes some Christians think that only a liberal Christianity can be intellectually coherent. Thus to have a faith which is acceptable scientifically one must reject miracles, creation, and anything concerned with the supernatural elements of faith, including the Virgin birth and the resurrection. This is the appeal of the way–out ideas of Bishop Spong and other liberal Christians, who claim to incorporate science into their faith.

Thirdly it makes non–believers think that Christianity is rooted in anti–science and is thus anti–intellectual and rooted in Medieval superstition. Thus no intelligent being could possibly be a believer. Richards Dawkins and others repeat this like a mantra.


Conflict Thesis of Science and Religion


Science versus religion – the antithesis conjures two hypostatized entities of the later nineteenth century; Huxley St George slaying Samuel smoothest of dragons; a mysterious undefined ghost called Science against a mysterious indefinable ghost called Religion; until by 1900 schoolboys decided not to have faith because Science, whatever that was, disproved Religion, whatever that was.


So wrote the great Church Historian Sir Owen Chadwick on the common understanding of the conflict of science and religion in a send up of the clash between Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s Bulldog, and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce over The Origin of Species in 1860. Most accounts tell us that Huxley trounced the good bishop and made him look stupid. It is quoted frequently to show how the church has always opposed science with bigoted obscurantism. Even the BBC produced a re–enactment for television and the book Evolution, the triumph of an idea, which accompanied the PBS series on Evolution, repeats a similar story. Like many good stories it has only one fault and that is that it is wrong! Those who have studied all the evidence have found this to be a fabrication and a legend. The story was not told until thirty years after the event and it transpires that Huxley’s memories played tricks on him as he compiled his memoirs in the 1890s. In fact Huxley could hardly be heard and his friend Hooker had to take the bishop to task. Even so Wilberforce made some telling criticisms of evolution and was supported by scientists including Sir Benjamin Brodie – the President of the Royal Society.

Huxley was not alone in peddling this conflict of science and religion. Two of the foremost were the Americans J. W. Draper and Andrew Dickson White of Cornell University. White wrote a book The Warfare of Science with Theology, which is in the form of a historical account of the way the church has always opposed science from the time of Christ to 1895. The historian of science Colin Russell described the book as a ‘polemic tract masquerading as history’. That is an English understatement! It is a book which raises the blood pressure of many historians as, if you check out the references as I have, you promptly find misquotation after misquotation. Yet for over a century White’s book has encouraged people to believe that there has always been a conflict and is still in print and available on line. His errors are copied in other books, at times in a plagiaristic manner. They are then copied by students who expect to get high grades!

They re-surface frequently in a wide variety of writings – “pop” history of science, popular science (often written by atheists with an axe to grind), college, and even evangelical, surveys on the history of ideas, and many works by theologians and church historians (both liberal and evangelical). Usually these focus on one or more of three main issues;

  1. The Churches’ opposition to Copernicus and Galileo
  2. The Churches’ opposition to Geology around 1800.
  3. The Churches’ opposition to Darwin in 1860.

In many books Calvin’s opposition to Copernicus is cited from his commentary on Genesis where he refers to Psalm 93:1 and then asks, “Who will dare to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?” (I even have it in French!) This quote is not to be found in Calvin’s commentary on Genesis, nor is it to be found in any of Calvin’s writings. Calvin did believe the earth to be at the center of the universe, but he died in 1564, 21 years after Copernicus. His commentaries on Genesis and the Psalms were published in 1554 and 1557 – within 15 years of the publication of  de Revolutionibus. In the 1550s only a handful of people would have accepted Copernican ideas as anything other than a mathematical description. Yet the charge sticks, and generations of students are still taught such legends and I still put a red line through when a student quotes it. The Galileo myth is even stronger and was briefly discussed earlier.

In a previous section I discussed the rise of geology and the fact that many early geologists were Christians. Yet the common view is that the church opposed geology at every turn. A minority of vocal Christians did oppose geology from 1800 to 1850 but did not represent the mainstream of the churches or evangelicalism. Some years ago Simon Winchester, a journalist with an Oxford degree in geology, wrote a life of William Smith entitled The Map that changed the World. It became a best–seller and had rave reviews, but on many pages it lambasted the church for opposing geology. Winchester wrote on page 29, ‘The hunch that God might not have done precisely as Bishop Ussher had suggested [creation in 4004BC],…, was beginning to be tested by real thinkers, by rationalists, by radically inclined scientists who were bold enough to challenge both the dogma and the law, the clerics and the courts.’ Winchester seemed oblivious to the fact that Smith’s main advisors and supporters were three clergymen, one an Evangelical. He does not mention which law forbade people to re–consider the age of the earth (assuming there was one!). The brief treatments in this chapter should demonstrate the falsity of his statement, but I wonder how many readers, Christian or not, will swallow his fabrications. Winchester is not alone as many writers repeat similar inaccuracies.

My favorite story about the response to Darwin in 1860 is what the Bishop of Worcester’s wife is supposed to have said, “Oh, my dear, let’s hope that what Mr Darwin says is not true. But if it is true, let us hope that it will not become generally known.” The source of this story is unknown and is regarded by many historians as an Urban Myth. Yet it appears on BBC documentaries about Darwin.

The Oxford biologist, Richard Dawkins, also is in error when he wrote in The Oxford Companion to Animal Behaviour, ‘… in 1862 the eminent physicist Lord Kelvin greatly worried Darwin by ‘proving’ that the …earth could not possibly be more than 24 million years. Although this estimate was considerably better than the 4004BC date then favored by churchmen…’p155 Apart from inaccuracies about Kelvin, Dawkins did not state which churchmen, presumably because he could not name any!

Sometimes when browsing in bookshops, I check history, theological and scientific books and usually find a few more examples of these alleged conflicts between science and faith. Unfortunately it is the minority who do not repeat these myths. We may ask what the effect is on the readers. I am sure that it re–inforces the popular perception that Christianity is in opposition to science. There is also a negative reverse side to the conflict thesis which, I believe, affects numbers of Christians for the best of motives. The effect here is to convince some Christians that much of science is wrong and atheistic in intent. The result is that Christians may be susceptible to believing the truth of any attack or demolition of science, which appears to contradict the Bible.


Refs J.H.Brooke Science and Religion, some historical perspectives, 1991, Cambridge University Press

Brooke and Cantor Reconstructing Nature, 1999, T & T Clark

**Denis Alexander Rebuilding the matrix, 2001, Lion (most readable of these!)

Lindberg and Numbers God and Nature, 1985, Univ of California Press

Lindberg and Numbers, When Science and Christianity meet,  2003 Univ of Chicago Press

And also the grossly unreliable

  1. D. White , The Warfare of Science with Theology, 1895 and reprints.


Influence of Science on Belief


Many Christians would be horrified that science can affect our belief and understanding of the Bible. It does, but it may be for good or ill. For example, there are many instances where archaeology illuminates the Bible and suggests that one interpretation is better than another. One simple example is that nature of the manger that Jesus was born in.  It was not a rustic log cabin but rather an extension carved into the limestone hillside of Bethlehem, which was common in that town.

On matters astronomical we will reject the type of astronomy suggested in Genesis 1 and Isaiah 40:22. It clearly depicted a flat earth with a firmament above, which was the common cosmology before 500BC. I do not think many will insist on a three–decker universe today! After doubts about Copernicanism until about 1650 hardly any theologians since then have opted for geocentrism. They accepted heliocentricity for scientific reasons and reckoned it was not important theologically. However it must be said that some Lutheran theologians did reject heliocentricity until the 19th century in the American Mid-West.


The question of the age of the earth is more problematic. Geologists have been categorical that the earth is millions of years old only from the late18th century. Before then there was no way of reckoning the age. So from the time of Christ until shortly before 1800 both “scientists” and theologians gave no clear answer as to the earth’s age. Thus a biblical commentator could do no more than guess and many left the question open. Thus for 1800 years commentators gave differing answers to this question. They also varied over their interpretation of the Bible. But by the early 19th century even the most conservative and evangelical commentators accepted the findings of the geologists and thus rejected a simple 6-day creation. To them geological findings eliminated one possible interpretation of Genesis.  They argued that this was no more significant than theologians who rejected geocentrism two centuries earlier. These include some of the most prominent evangelicals of the 19th Century – Chalmers, Candlish, Hodge father and son, B. B. Warfield, J. C. Ryle, Handley Moule, Gaussen among others. Several of these contributed to The Fundamentals of 1910 and are thus the earliest Fundamentalists.

Against this, some argued that science undermined the Christian Faith. From the time of Copernicus some Christians have thought that new science was a threat to faith. This is seen in some Lutheran reactions to Copernicus and the Inquisition’s opposition to Galileo. From the late 17th century until the middle of the 19th century a minority opposed early advances in geology on the grounds that it contradicted scripture, especially on the Creation and Flood. Thomas Burnet was criticized by some in 1690 because he suggested that the Days of Genesis might be longer than 24 hours, even though others put forward the same ideas. At the end of the 18th century some opposed geology in Britain and France. The major opposition to geology took place in Britain from 1817, when a small minority of Christian leaders argued that geology had to be wrong as it contradicted a literal Genesis and that the existence of animal death prior to the Fall negated the atonement. Most had no geological skills but a few had a smattering, and are variously termed Scriptural or Anti–geologists. They published a flurry of pamphlets and books, which were roundly opposed by leading evangelicals such as Sumner and Chalmers. However by 1855 hardly any Evangelicals still insisted on a literal Genesis. I give these two examples as they demonstrate a reaction against science by some Christians.

Since the 18th century various thinkers of an agnostic or atheistic persuasion have used science to undermine Christian belief, seeking to demonstrate that science has made faith untenable. Some argue that every scientific discovery since Copernicus has negated faith and here they adopt an extreme conflict of science and faith perspective. Such writers as Draper and White are typical, as are Jones and Dawkins today. Very often writers like these trot out the old stories of Columbus, Galileo, opposition to Geology and Darwin without much concern as to accuracy. As this is the dominant opinion of popular scientists today it molds the beliefs and perspectives of many and is often what is presented in the teaching of science at all levels from high–school to post–graduate.

Science has also affected the way that miracles are understood. Before the rise of science miracles were seen as acts of God and not given any explanation. David Hume changed that in the 18th century in his attack on miracles. The key was to define miracle as an event contrary to scientific law and his definition is now the accepted one. The Bible does not see miracles like this, as the Bible is prescientific, and considers them as particular acts of God. This is very clear in the treatment of “signs” in John’s Gospel. (In John’s Gospel miracles are always called “signs”.) This definition has taken root by Christian and non–Christian alike with unfortunate consequences. It has meant that the biblical miracles can be rejected as contrary to science and this has been the theme of much liberal theology since 1800. Some of the early examples are the re–writing of the New Testament to eliminate the miraculous by D. F. Strauss and F.C. Baur in the 1840s. From then on there has been a tendency to reject the Virgin Birth and Empty Tomb and bodily resurrection and if faith is retained the content is purely naturalistic and rejects the possibility of the miraculous. Thus today many Christians in mainstream denominations will reject core doctrines for being anti–scientific. Arthur Peacocke, a recipient of the Templeton Prize, argues very strongly that miracles have no place in the Christian faith as he believes God does not intervene in that way.  Questions about miracles are never far away when one considers the relationship of science and faith, but miracles have been given careful study by writers like C.S.Lewis, Colin Brown and Denis Alexander.


C.S.Lewis Miracles

Colin Brown Miracles and the Critical Mind

**Forster and Marston Reason, Science and Faith, 1999 Monarch, and on website


Genesis 1 to 11

When it comes to science, Genesis 1 to 11 is the locus of most controversy and confusion. There are basically four problem areas; a) the days of Genesis One, b) the Creation of Man and Woman En 1.26 – 2, c) the Fall of Man and the nexus of sin and death and d) the Flood.

As the focus of this volume is on the age of the earth, I shall only consider the first. I have already been sharply critical of those who falsely accuse Christians of hindering the rise of geology. In the two millennia of Christian history there has not been one fixed or even dominant interpretation of the Days of Genesis. The New Testament is silent on the matter and perhaps that should tell us not to make it a touchstone of orthodoxy. The Early Fathers of the first Five Christian Centuries were divided on the matter. Some took the days literally and reckoned the earth would last only 6,000 years as did Barnabas and Theophilus in the second century. Other writers including Augustine did not take the days literally. From this we may conclude that the duration of the Day is a secondary matter, unlike the Trinity and the Person of Christ which were the dominant theological questions of the early church. Further, at that time there was simply no geological evidence on the age of the earth, so people could only speculate from the Bible or various Greek and Roman myths.

The general opinion is that the Christian Church of whatever denomination believed Genesis literally until geological evidence forced them to reconsider the matter in the 19th century. Most writers claim that literalism and a young earth was the orthodox position until Chalmers succumbed to geology in 1802 and put forward his Gap Theory. Many secular and liberal Christian writers argue from this that the church was obscurantist and anti–science and thus Christianity had to bow the knee to science. Some liberal Christians like Bishop Spong use this as an argument as to why Christians must reject the authority of the Bible and discard most of the classical Christian doctrines. Some Christian writers argue differently and posit that to be orthodox in belief, as the church was before 1800, a Christian must believe in a literal Six-Day Creation. This almost pincer movement of atheists and liberal Christians on one side and young earthers on the other often makes it difficult for a Christian to claim that it is perfectly orthodox to believe in an old earth now and it was also orthodox to do so in 1800.

Though this is a very common perception, there was not a unanimous belief in a Six-day creation in the past. It is, of course, correct to say that most writers in the Reformation period and many until the early 19th century did believe that Creation took place in about 4000BC, but many did not. Sir Walter Raleigh (1552?-1618) in his History of the World (1614) written in the Tower of London considered the world to be created in about 4000 BC. Raleigh’s date was the same as that proposed by the Protestant reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546), the Roman Catholic Cardinal Bellarmine (1542-1621), and the devisor of the map projection, Mercator (1512-1594). A century earlier Columbus (1451-1506) was more generous with 5443 BC. These few dates show how widely accepted a date of 4000 to 5000 BC was for the origin of the earth. The majority of Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians concurred on about 4000BC and the Geneva Reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) typically reckoned “the present world is drawing to a close before it has completed its six thousandth year.”

As the Reformation progressed some developed a revamped Chiliasm, that is that the earth will last “six days” of one thousand years (a millennium) followed by the seventh chiliastic day  – the Millennium. In the early 1600s the Dutch Protestant theologian Josef Scaliger put creation at 25 October 3950 BC. (Autumn was a favored time for Creation, as the fruits would provide sustenance for the winter.) The best known Chiliaist was Archbishop James Ussher of Armagh (1581-1656). Ussher wrote Annales Veteris Testamenti in 1650, which was a solid piece of chronological scholarship in which he argued from historical grounds that Jesus was born in 4BC. But he is remembered for his date of creation – 4004 BC. Despite popular representations, he did not arrive at this figure from arithmetic applied to dates of patriarchs and other Old Testament figures. To Ussher there were six Chiliastic days of 1000 years apiece followed by the seventh day of the Millennium. There were four Chiliaistic days before Christ and thus Creation took place in 4004 BC, on the night before 23 October. Adam was created on 28 October. This date causes amusement to many, but the rest of Ussher’s chronology was very sound for the 17th century, as he was a careful scholar. ( figure n.) His chronological calculations for the rest of the Old Testament are close to today’s estimates. Had not Ussher’s chronology been inserted in many English Bibles from 1704, he would probably have been forgotten, except to historians who valued his careful work on most of the Old Testament. As a result Ussher’s date of 4004BC is even today regarded as official church doctrine until the geologists demonstrated the vast age of the earth.

And this is where the story stops for most, but it is where the story begins. We have already considered how geology and its arguments for a vast age developed from early beginnings in the late 17th Century. One of the features of the Renaissance as understood by the various churches was that all knowledge was part of a unified whole and thus ‘Biblical History’ was related to other spheres of knowledge both classical and modern. Thus Genesis was not considered in isolation but with reference to those classical writers like Heisiod who spoke about chaos. It was widely held that God first created chaos (identical with tohu vabohu – the ‘without form and void’ of Genesis 1:2) and sometime later re–ordered the chaotic creation in Six Days. This extended understanding of Genesis predates any scientific influence.  In the early 17th century the Arminian Hugo Grotius in The Truth of the Christian Faith in Six Books argued that ‘the most antient tradition among all Nations [Phonecian and Greek] is exactly agreeable to the Revelation of Moses’[1] and his work was later translated and widely available and used throughout Europe. Many later writers, like Nathaniel Grew, cited Grotius in support of a chaos of undefined duration. In 1624 Mersenne, priest–mathematician, wrote a massive commentary of early Genesis (size 18”x12”x5”!!) adding much mathematics to his exegesis which included many references to classical writers.[2] He also included a chaos of undefined duration.

Some decades later from the 1660s Steno, Ray, Woodward, Whiston and others began to study the earth and laid the foundations of geology. Several wrote Theories of the Earth, which built geology around Genesis 1 to 11. Most take these Theories as teaching a literal Six-Day Creation and Flood, but in fact they all speak of the initial creation of chaos, which lasted for some time. Burnett wrote of indefinite chaos, ‘so it is understood by the general consent of commentators’ and the commentator Bishop Patrick wrote of the duration of chaos that’ (I)t might be a great while’. A survey of these Theories and theological writings of this period show that most did not follow Ussher’s chronology and allowed more time for creation. I am tempted to call these writers MECs (middle–aged earth creationists). This view was the dominant one until after 1760, when an increasing number of writers, acknowledging geological arguments for a great age, interpreted Genesis accordingly. They did this in two ways. Some argued that the Days were indefinitely long – extending Whiston’s idea that the Days were each a year long. The Swiss geologist de Luc reckoned the days to be a few thousand years, but Buffon, who was no atheist or deist, argued for tens or hundreds of millennia. Others kept the Six Days of re–ordering and extended the duration of chaos to include all geological time. Thomas Chalmers classically expressed this in 1802 with his Gap Theory. All Chalmers did was to tweak the common interpretation of Genesis.

By considering the way these interpretations developed we can see that Christians did not suddenly realize in about 1800 that geologists were arguing for millions of years and then as a desperate expedient made up the Gap Theory or the Day–Age Theory in a last–ditch attempt to save Christianity from geologists. This is how it is often presented in popular books and websites. In fact, Chalmers’ Gap Theory is a gradual development over two centuries from Grotius’s apologetics, as he himself claimed.

Though there are theological problems with the Gap Theory it was the dominant view held by conservative Christians until the last thirty years when many began to insist on a literal Genesis. However forms of the Day Age theory and the Gap Theory have been held by Christians since the time of the early church which saves them from the charge of being sops to geological ages. During the 19th Century most evangelical Christians held to one or the other and that includes the architects of Inerrancy – the Princeton theologians Charles and Archibald Hodge and the great B.B.Warfield. Space forbids listing any others. Many of the contributors to The Fundamentals and early 20th Century Fundamentalists agreed with Hodge and Warfield. It is often not known that very few 19th Century Evangelicals took Genesis literally and denied geological ages.

However in the 21st Century we cannot consider Genesis independently of our understanding of modern science. That is the case, whether we are Christian or not, or whether we accept the findings of science or not. The result is that the options presented are often reduced to either accepting Genesis in a literal sense, or else bending or breaking Genesis to conform to the dictates of science and rejecting the “traditional” literal interpretation. A consideration of the history of the interpretation of Genesis One will prevent such a stark choice and much heartbreak.

Today several liberal theologians claim that before Darwin all took the Bible literally and now cannot. Thus today that means one can accept neither Genesis nor the rest of the Bible, thus the OT becomes folk tales about Israel and the NT is demythologised. The existence of Jesus is accepted but his Divinity, the Virgin Birth and any objectivity of the Resurrection are firmly denied. This is also the common fare of the humanist, atheist and confused unbeliever. The net result is a considerable scepticism and resistance to the Bible and Christ’s claims.



Forster and Marston Reason, Science and Faith


The Problem of Perception


Last year a colleague of mine was unjustly critical of American churches at a meeting. I confess to interrupting him and saying that this was racist. It stopped him in his tracks! He suffered from a false perception of American churches and only focussed on the bad. I have spent too much time with American Christians to allow such false perceptions to go unchallenged. Unfortunately false perceptions of America and her churches are rife in Britain, as are false perceptions about the British in America. It is essential to have a good knowledge of the other nation so we can see both the good and the bad in them and discern where the two nations are simply different.

There is also a serious problem of perception on the relationship of science and religion. The alleged conflict is often a matter of perception, and at times this perception can be fuelled by ideological concerns, especially by some with an atheistic axe to grind. Believing the atheist to be correct in their historical facts some Christians react and thus develop a perception, which perceives that science is anti–Christian. The two mis–perceptions feed each other and cause havoc both in churches and in the classroom.

One of my purposes in this short account of the history of changing concepts of science is to challenge false perceptions both by agenda–driven atheists and Christians as they have both done so much damage to the Gospel over the last century. Despite the fact that today there is so much good history of science (and its relationship with Christianity), whether by believers or not, it is simply overlooked and ignored by many Christians. There are many fine Christian historians of science who can help our understanding; Mark Noll, David Livingstone, Edward Davies, David Knight, the late Reijer Hooykaas, Colin Russell, Paul Marston, Martin Rudwick, Ted Larsen, and also many historians, who make no Christian claims, whose work is sympathetic and helpful; Geoffrey Cantor, Michael Ruse, Ron Numbers, Peter Bowler, Hugh Torrens. Perpetuating false perceptions mars much popular writing on the subject from non–believers and believers alike. The one presents scientists as anti–Christian and the other Christians as obscurantist bigots.




Very briefly, we have selectively looked at the development of science in the last 3000 years. It shows how we have moved from a pre– and non–scientific culture to one dominated by science. Particular emphasis has been given to geology and astronomy because of the implications on the age of the earth and the universe.

The development of the sciences has been put into the cultural and religious context of the time, so that any possible conflict can be seen in context rather than according to atheistic spectacles, which makes us judge the Christian Church in a negative way.

It cannot be denied that science causes a major problem to many Christians and that non–Christians often believe that science contradicts Christianity. As a result unbelievers believe that science has disproved faith and good numbers of believers hold that to be a Christian one must reject large parts of science. However by looking at the issues historically, the problem of perception is raised and identified. Here the whole issue is confused and inflamed by the Conflict Thesis of Science and Religion, which was introduced by 19th century polemicists like Draper and White. This misperception has been widely accepted and is used by atheistic popularizers to denigrate Christianity. Though the conflict thesis has been refuted by many historians, both non–Christian and Christian, it still forms the perception of the majority of people.

It is this false perception that does so much damage to the Christian Faith throughout the world. One of the purposes of this chapter is to change that misperception and recognize that in the past many of the scientists who developed their particular fields were devout Christians.

I will conclude with the epitaph to Adam Sedgwick, the greatest evangelical geologist of all, in the church of his birth at Dent in the Yorkshire Dales;













[1] Grotius, The Truth of the Christian Faith in Six Books tr John Clarke, 1719, section XVI

[2] Mersenne

Oxford theologian outs himself – as being on the right.

Some personal comments. I met Nigel Biggar in 1999 at Oriel college at a Gaudy i.e. graduates gathering!! He wanted me to read a lesson in the chapel. This was odd as I’d never been to chapel while at Oriel.

We haven’t met since but I noted his writings didn’t fall into the usual watermelon mush beloved by today’s Anglicans

Reading this I found we had much in common especially over the silly RMF Rhodes Must Fall movement which wanted to remove rhodes statue from Oriel Coll as Rhodes was reckoned to be a racist. Having been in South Africa working in mining I followed much of Rhodes legacy, – his shady deals in mining , the Jameson raid etc. However he was not a racist as he ensured non-whites had the vote in Cape Province way back in 1900. Now that is progressive

Here Biggar makes some good points.



Rev Prof Nigel Biggar, Prof of Moral Theology at Oxford and former chaplain of Oriel

I was certainly in the sixties, but I was never of them. Born in 1955, I grew up alongside the post-war emergence of pop culture, the rumble of resentment against Americans as they waxed and we waned, the flourishing of utopian flower-power, and the associated debunking of all the old certainties and heroes. While Blackadder didn’t dare to mock the Battle of Britain pilots, he was merciless in his caricature of their fathers.

Nevertheless, my Inner Edwardian refused to vacate my soul, and so I found the cultural changes swirling around me painful and unsettling, and I resisted swallowing the New Narrative whole. But observing that the tide was against me, I went into inner exile.


Growing old has its advantages. One is that we come to know our own mind more clearly; the other, that we cease to care so much what others think of it. It’s not that I am always sure of myself; it’s rather that I feel that I have a vocation and a duty to say it as I see it. If I’m proven wrong, then we’ll all learn through the proving. But if I’m right, then what I say needs to be heard. Either way, the truth wins out.

I first started making trouble in 2013, when I published a book called In Defence of War. My pacifist confrères were, of course, aghast. But even others baulked at my defence of military intervention without UN authorisation. One whispered to me that I was abusing my authority as an eminent professor; another, that I was just being “contrarian”. Somehow they couldn’t compute that I say what I do simply because I believe it. And rather than tackle the argument, they preferred to tackle my integrity.

The same thing happened the following year when I produced a book that argues – with oodles of qualification – in favour of the nation-state, a certain sort of patriotism, the Anglican establishment, and (even) the British empire. In response, a colleague of 30 years, who has never once taken the trouble to engage me in conversation on these matters, published a review in which he described my opinions as “glorying in their unfashionability”. No responsible, rational engagement. Not even charity.

Then came the First World War. Late in 2013 I had published an article in Standpoint, which argued that that Britain was right to go to war in 1914. Early in the New Year Michael Gove praised it in the Daily Mail, provoking the Cambridge historian Richard Evans to enter the lists in the New Statesman, where he dismissed what I’d written as “absurd”, declining to offer reasons while sneering at the “self-importance of his [ie, my] tribe”. Sneering at whole tribes is what we call “bigotry”. But in this case Evans was shrewd in lining up the victims of his prejudice. Had he chosen Jews, blacks or gays, it would have cost him his job. But because he targeted the class of Christian theologians, and because he is an eminent Man of the Left, it was fair game.

And then there was Rhodes. Because of my sympathy for the British empire, and because I’d been reading about the history of British involvement in South Africa for the past four summers, when the Rhodes Must Fall (RMF) movement started to besiege Oriel College in the autumn of 2015, I felt moved to act, first of all in print and then in a debate at the Oxford Union.


About that debate two things are remarkable. First was the opening sally of one of my opponents, Richard Drayton. Drayton argued that, if he were to presume to offer his opinions on the theology of the eucharist, he, as an historian of Africa, wouldn’t deserve to be taken seriously. Therefore, nor should mine on Rhodes, I being a mere theologian. Had there been time to respond, I’d have said that, had an Africanist shared his views on the eucharist, I’d have treated them on their merits, and that it was disappointing that he wouldn’t extend the same justice to me.

Then there was the intimidation. The RMF group in Oxford was little more than 2,000 strong. On the generous assumption that they were all Oxford University students, that amounts to about 10 per cent of the student body. They were a small minority, but an intimidating one. During the debate, every statement by an RMF proponent met promptly with a storm of cheers and applause. If you weren’t paying attention, you’d have thought the audience overwhelmingly supportive. But at one moment I decided to look rather than listen, and observed that, during the thunderous applause, most of those present were actually sitting on their hands.

But the most shocking revelation of the whole controversy was that the RMF activists had no interest in the truth. I laid out my views in the London Times in December 2015, in the Oxford Union debate in January 2016, and in Standpoint that March. Those views included a demonstration that the quotation usually cited as proof of Rhodes’ genocidal racism is a mixture of fiction, distortion, and fabrication. No one at all has challenged my account, either then or since. The truth about the past, and the duty to do justice to it, is of no interest. History, it seems, is merely an armoury from which to ransack politically expedient weapons.


So what are the morals of my story? One, that academics – despite their self-perception – are no more morally virtuous than any other class of people. The fact that academics are unusually clever doesn’t make them unusually honest, just, or charitable.

The second moral is more hopeful. The zealous certainty of a minority can tie the tongues of an uncertain majority. But when someone dares to stand up and out, others begin to find their voices, reassured that what they think can be said in public without risking social death. For, despite appearances, they are not alone in thinking it.

Private Eye frack themselves – again!

Private Eye  is always a good read, and for decades has cast its pen dipped in hydrofluoric acid on so many issues.  Its comment is always amusing and usually pertinent.

However, when they dabble in fracking they get fracked. Probably the reason is that they look to a persuasive experts, whose credentials are more in bullshit than anything else.

Here is their latest from May 2017. It is all very convincing but Ken’s letter to Private Eye eviscerates it. I will let him speak………..


Image may contain: text


Ken wrote to Private Eye

I just sent this to Private Eye.

‘Old Sparky’ who writes the ‘Keeping the Lights on’ column has been following the line of BS from the antifrackers. I was a bit surprised by what Old Sparky wrote about shale gas production. He seems to have swallowed some of the fake news from antifrackers.

I write this as I wrote the complaint which challenged the claims of Friends of the Earth last January. FoE were unable to sustain their claims about water pollution, health effects, asthma. See I am a retired, totally independent 12 years experienced oil rig engineer who, like Strobes, dislikes bullshit. The antifracking movement is entirely founded on bullshit.

So the Tories plan to reduce the regulatory hoop jumping? Why should ill informed people be able to pass comment on technical issues that occur underground?There is no evidence that the proposed fracking system will cause any problems, and 1 million wells in the US with not a single proven case of water pollution or health effect should indicate its intrinsic safety. There are however possible pollution paths from surface spills, and the regs in the UK block all of those potential leak paths. They do not need inspection.

Like any other industry, if the regulations say that you have to use a fluid particular system, then thats what you have to use. How many personal inspections does that need? In fact on previous wells there have been drop in visits by the HSE and Environment Agency, though Old Sparky’s ill informed ‘advisers’ will doubtless claim different. (I have never voted Tory BTW and hate Mrs May and Brexit!) Planning docs run to hundreds of pages will all techniques, chemicals etc exposed to public scrutiny. The regulations are here and here All of these would still be required, its just that the years that it takes to drill a perfectly safe well would be bypassed. The wells would still need to follow planning law, and comment on location/truck movements/etc are still in place. The Lancashire vote against permission was taken against legal advice, by councillors who were not competent to pass comment on the technical issues. These issues had already been dealt with by the expert Planning Dept who recommended approval. So the Tories are ‘gung ho’? Why not, for something that could be a massive revenue earner, with minimal intrusion on the beauty of the countryside? (I have visited the proposed Yorkshire frack site, its almost invisible, like the 100 wells in posh Poole Harbour…) Recently protestors tried in Pickering tried to block access to a well, and they couldnt find it! 😅


An aside from MR; Here’s a well in Lancashire clearly visible from the road



Somehow the shale gas debate has been highjacked by fake reports of health impacts, financed by many anti fossil fuel organisations, yet there is not a single lawsuit in the most litigious country in the world. Claims of cancer/asthma are dismissed by experts, and extensive research into water pollution has revealed no cases of pollution but still the antis go on about it. In the UK carcinogens, and toxic chemicals are forbidden by UK and EU law, but that doesnt stop people claiming they will be used. Please feel free to contact me for a more sober view on what all of the expert engineering and geological groups say is a low risk technology. I expect Strobes to be able to get to the truth, rather than the bullshit surrounding these matters. The truth in this case is rather boring. Shale gas is a low risk activity. Ask the Royal Academy of Engineering, or the BGS.

Fake news is nothing new: 6 pseudo-news websites have colored GMO debate for years

Ummmm! Interesting

A review of 6 fake sites on GMO foods. The last two are of interest.

The Ecologist –a long standing eco-magazine which I took in hte 70s and loved. It now publishs OTT stuff on Green issues whether GMO or Fracking


RT – Russia Television – a Moscow based disinformation channel which is implacably opposed to fracking, but never deals with pollution caused by petroleum extraction in Russia



‘Fake news’ may be new to most people, but not to followers of the anti-GMO debate. Here are some of the leading purveyors of misleading information.

Source: Fake news is nothing new: 6 pseudo-news websites have colored GMO debate for years

“Fake news” is now a well-known term, at least to Americans in the wake of the US presidential election. But followers of events in genetic modification of food and crops have been familiar with the “fake news” phenomenon for years. A number of websites have thrived for years, offering misleading stories with alarmist headlines — in opposition to GMO crops and livestock. Some of these sites (they all have a strong, if not exclusive, online presence) focus directly on GMOs, while others provide a forum for selling products, and still others take a broad stroke on a number of environmental and health issues. Here is a selection of these “Fake news” sites.

Natural News

Natural News, renamed from in the mid-2000s, is headed by the self-described “Health Ranger” Mike Adams, who has described biotechnology scientists as “the most despicable humanoids to walk the face of this planet.” [Read GLP’s profile of Mike Adams.] The site publishes original articles, while also aggregating the work of others — almost unanimously in opposition to GMOs, vaccines, or anything it considers to be under influence of corporations. It is affiliated with the non-profit organization Consumer Wellness Center, created in 2006 by Adams.

The website promotes natural health and lifestyle products, including this $2,000 “hydrogen infusion machine.” It was dubbed the “worst anti-science website” by science-based Skeptic.

.] In December, 2016, for example, a story headlined “US Court of Appeals: States and counties can ban GMO crops despite federal laws,” claimed the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had passed a law allowing local and state authorities in Hawaii to enact bans on genetically modified crops. In fact, the Ninth Circuit (which under the US Constitution cannot pass laws) did the opposite: it overruled decisions by county and local officials in Hawaii to ban GMO, citing the authority of the state and the US Plant Protection Act.

And in May, 2016, the site published a story claiming: “CRISPR gene editing lies exposed by genomics expert.,” It wrote:

The biotechnology industry is carrying out a concerted public-relations campaign to promote the idea that new, so-called “gene editing” technologies are the more accurate, safer successor to now-defunct traditional genetic engineering (GE). But this campaign is founded upon several straight-up myths about the new technology, which is nothing more than the same reckless GE paradigm under another name.

The expert? Jonathan Latham, editor of another “fake news” site, Independent Science News. In reality traditional genetic engineering is anything but defunct, since 90 percent of all corn and soybean planted in the US is genetically modified, and, in Hawaii, the papaya industry was saved by the introduction of a modified, virus-resistant version of the popular fruit.

Natural News is not exclusively devoted to opposing genetic modification and promoting organic and “natural” products. Adams has promoted such causes as AIDS denialism, 9/11 truther conspiracies, Barack Obama citizenship ‘birther’ claims and is a believer in ‘dangerous’ chemtrails and the ‘danger’ of vaccines.

The website has been publishing online for more than 20 years. In addition to selling a wide range of “natural” products, books and fitness plans all under the Mercola brand, it also publishes articles favoring organic foods, and opposing genetic modifications.
Mercola is the creation of Joseph Mercola, an Illinois-based doctor of osteopathic medicine, who claims it as “the world’s No. 1 health Website.”

Arguing that traditional medicine (including vaccines, pharmaceuticals and surgery) kills, he offers alternative cures including prescribing “organic, non-commercially harvested” seaweed supplements to treat thyroid problems. Mercola promotes and sells a variety of “alternative” products; for which he has received multiple warning letters from the FDA.

His website offers a steady stream articles opposing (among other things) GMOs, and which offer his natural products as alternatives.

In a recent article arguing against eating soy, Mercola points to the fact that most soy grown in the US is modified to resist the herbicide glyphosate, which, he claimed is responsible for the disruption of the delicate hormonal balance of the female reproductive cycle. The article cites two studies, one in amphibians and the other in hamsters, showing how (in amphibians) a “tiny amount” of glyphosate caused anatomical abnormalities and (in hamsters) infertility in three generations. None of these appeared in peer-reviewed journals. Instead they were published by the Pesticide Action Network and in the Huffington Post. The site also uses anti-gmo stories to help promote a $99.00 glyphosate testing kit.

Independent Science News

This news site was started in 2011, by the Bioscience Resource Project, an organization that says it provides independent research and analysis in the agriculture-related biosciences and has been in existence since 2006. The site is edited by Jonathan Latham, who holds a PhD in virology and has published papers on a wide variety of topics, including genetics.

According to the organization’s website:

Powerful interests routinely succeed in influencing the answers. In science, external forces influence strongly what is studied, what is published, and what is reported. When that happens, individuals (or policymakers) no longer have the information to decide rationally and choose thoughtfully. Society becomes dysfunctional at a fundamental level.

At ISN we chooses (sic) our stories carefully. Most concern simultaneous manipulations of the scientific process, the food/ag system, and the science media.

According to the site, these stories include:

  • “False agribusiness claims about the safety and performance of GMO food and crops
  • Bee Learning Behaviour Affected by GMO Toxins
  • Roundup-Ready to Yield?
  • Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops.

At best, the headlines and stories under them are misleading, at worst, they are simply false.

The website has posted stories arguing there is no scientific consensus on the safety GM foods (there is a consensus, actually), a guest post by well-known GM food opponent Vandana Shiva, and conspiracy theories about genetic testing and population mass surveillance by the government. It also has been linked by anti-technology intellectual Naomi Oreskes, who linked one of her Tweets to the website’s article on Monsanto, a piece by Jonathan Latham speculating that GM food (and therefore Monsanto and others who make them) were in peril because Chipotle had vowed to remove GMO products from its restaurants.

Sustainable Pulse

This website says it is owned and maintained “by a group of concerned citizens and scientists.” While some editors claim it is based in the UK, it is registered in Bulgaria, and two of its chief editors, Henry Rowlands and Radostin Nonkin, work in Bulgaria. In addition to its site, which predominantly features articles about opposition to GMOs, it is connected to what it calls “reference projects:”

  • GMO Evidence—“a simple resource that shows the global picture of harm from GMOs & Roundup.”
  • GMO Seralini—a main source page for all of Gilles-Eric Seralini’s papers and other materials, including his famous 2012 discredited study on tumors in rats that had been retracted, and subsequently republished in a so-called “pay for play” publication.
  • GMO Judy Carman—a similar source page for Australian anti-GMO advocate and researcher, who is best known for her (also discredited, based on questionable methods) 2013 study in the little-known open access Journal of Organic Systems, in which she claimed to have found a link between genetically modified maize and inflammation of the stomach in pigs.

On its main page, one of its most popular posts is a story, “Review Links Roundup to Diabetes, Autism, Infertility and Cancer,” referring to a 2013 paper by anti-GMO advocates Stephanie Seneff and Anthony Samsel. No link between glyphosate and these diseases by any reputable scientific lab has ever been found.

In a lead story, Sustainable Pulse quoted “experts” from the anti-GMO activist community, such as GM Watch and GM Freeze, on their opposition to testing by Rothamsted Research on a type of wheat engineered to more efficiently use photosynthesis to increase crop yields. While the group also quoted the head of the Rothamsted project, quotes from the anti group questioned whether farmers needed to grow more wheat:

What is the purpose of growing more wheat in the first place? World food production already far exceeds the needs of generations to come but people still go hungry. Nobody is starving because of some fundamental flaw with photosynthesis; they are starving because they are poor.

Which is half right.

The Ecologist

“Setting the environmental agenda since 1970,” according to the news site’s masthead, the organization was established as a journal in London, publishing scientific papers that were, according to the papers’ authors, too radical for other journals and magazines. It published in print until 2009, when it became an online magazine and stopped publishing academic-type papers.

Taking a clear anti-globalization, pro-local effort stance on issues, it has posted stories pertaining to climate change, the oil industry, nuclear power, animal rights, and genetically modified foods. Jonathan Latham is frequently posted on the site, including this story accusing the Cornell University Alliance for Science for “being chicken,” in allegedly turning down a debate with anti-GMO activists. It turns out that the “invitation” was tucked into a dense comment section on social media. It also has been running stories critical of policies of the new UK government in the wake of the nation’s vote to withdraw from the European Union. The site also posts screeds from Carey Gillam, a former Reuters reporter who left the news agency for US Right to Know, and whose work is reliably anti-GMO.

The Ecologist’s editors and writers often produce pieces that look well-researched, but the conclusions invariably fall in line with their anti-GMO, technology-skeptic editorial trends. In February, a large piece on the Zika virus in Brazil and other parts of South America cited several studies discussing the possibility that a pesticide, or a previous genetically modified virus, was responsible for the microcephaly cases seen early last year. While the story was updated extensively and even refuted some of its earlier claims of “jumping DNA” and inserted transposons, it still concluded that any future release of genetically modified insects (such as the Oxitec modified mosquito):

Were to take place, it could give rise to numerous new mutations of the virus with the potential to cause even more damage to the human genome, that we can, at this stage, only guess at

Russia Today (RT)

Russia Today, or RT as it now known–its pedigree is Pravda, the propaganda organ of the Communist Party–made a headlines in January when a US intelligence report pointed to it as a major propaganda instrument used in attempts to influence the US presidential election. The television network and website (which have US versions) follow a pattern familiar to followers of Russia and the former Soviet Union—a state-run news agency that claims to be independent but generally hews to Russian policies and authorities..

It is often accused to spreading propaganda and violating journalistic traditions of impartiality. In the United Kingdom, the media regulator Ofcom repeatedly found RT breached rules on impartiality, and of broadcasting “materially misleading” content.

RT reports on a wide range of global issues, much like Reuters, the BBC, AFP or CNN. On GMOs, RT is solidly critical, as is the Russian government, which recently enacted a ban on any foreign GMO from entering the country, and outlawed the creation of a commercial GMO product.

Some stories, including this one on FDA approval of the Simplot potato last year that has a Reuters copyright on it, appear to be straight news, but emphasize comments from anti-GMO activists. The Reuters story heavily quotes Jeffrey Smith, founder of the anti-GMO organization Institute for Responsible Technology:

“It makes sense on paper,” he said of the potatoes that are purported to be resistant to blight – the pathogen responsible for the Great Famine. However, one of the issues is that the effects of modified these genomes are largely unknown.

“When we tamper with the genome in the way that they’ve been doing with genetic engineering in our food supply, you end up increasing allergens, toxins, new diseases or other problems – causes massive collateral damage in the DNA” he said.

This quote, of course, ignores the extensive testing by developers of the potato, reviews by FDA officials, and the advances in knowledge of genetics in general.

A video on RT spends more than six minutes opining on a number of issues, from the so-called “DARK Act,” to alleged “wheat escape” and perpetuates many of the typical myths that are refrains of the anti-GMO movement, such as whether QR codes really work, and the false story of the “world killing” Klebsiella microbe that was modified to increase alcohol production and boost decomposition.

Andrew Porterfield is a writer, editor and communications consultant for academic institutions, companies and non-profits in the life sciences. He is based in Camarillo, California. Follow @AMPorterfield on Twitter.

Vivienne Westwood fracks the Archbishop of Canterbury

Well , well, well, Dame Vivienne Westwood is chastising the Church of England for their report on Fracking chaired by the Bishop of Salisbury

This is hilarious in many ways and shows the folly of those opposing fracking, especially dress-designers.


An earlier set of false claims about fracking from Westwood and Talk Fracking



This is what she thinks fracking will do to babies.

The Church’s report is remarkably good and thorough. Her claims of being flawed are simply daft. She tries to rubbish the excellent Mackay/Stone report as it didn’t use Howarth’s 2011 paper on fugitive methane. Two points, the late sir David Mackay was one of Britain’s best experts on energy and his early death is a great loss. Howarth’s paper was simply dodgy and gave way-out results which cannot be reproduced.

In other words, her report is utter nonsense

I hope no one in the churches are silly enough to go along with Westwood, but on past form I suspect some of the churches’ Green experts will agree with her.

Church and State Used Flawed Data for Fracking Report

Dear ,

Dame Vivienne Westwood and The Grim Reaper visited the home of the Archbishop of Canterbury to deliver our damning new report proving fracking could be considerably worse than coal in terms of its effect on climate change.

The report completely undermines the Conservative manifesto and the Church of England’s report in support for hydraulic fracturing. Our report compiles peer-reviewed studies which prove that the MacKay-Stone report, which the government depended on to support their case for fracking, is fatally flawed and riddled with false data. MacKay-Stone did not disclose any of their industry associations and only utilised biased industry directed samples.

Is Fracking Worse than Coal?

Our report shows that the government was evidently misled and in turn continued to mislead parliament and the public with the findings of the MacKay-Stone report. Furthermore, this evidence now suggests that shale oil and gas extraction could be considerably worse than coal in terms of its effects on climate change and global warming.

The environmental impact of shale gas extraction is proven to be 300-400 times higher than reported in the MacKay-Stone report. In the MacKay-Stone report, the figure for leakage calculation was only half what it should have been. The figure for gas production is twice what it should have been. Additionally, MacKay-Stone deliberately excluded the figures in the Howarth study (2011) from their final calculations to support their own findings.

Conservative’s Shale Manifesto Left in Tatters

Our report completely undermines the Conservative party’s policies in support of shale oil and gas extraction. May’s manifesto does a complete u-turn on their promise to give communities a voice in deciding whether or not fracking happens in their local area. The Conservatives would allow drill sites they consider as “non-fracking”, to be authorised as ‘permitted development’, bypassing the same scrutiny and regulations of fracking applications.

The Church & the Flawed MacKay-Stone Report

The Church of England’s Mission and Public Affairs Council, and the Environment Working Group chaired by the Bishop of Salisbury, stunned Christians nationwide in January 2017 when it said that fracking was “morally acceptable” because it replaced “dirtier energy”, meaning coal.  The Church also quoted MacKay-Stone in its ‘Briefing Paper on Shale Gas and Fracking’.

The Church owns 100,000 acres of farmland and has already allowed energy company Aurora to carry out seismic surveys to assess shale gas potential on land near Ormskirk, Lancashire.

Vivienne vs The Church of England

Dame Vivienne Westwood wrote to The Archbishop of Canterbury on 18th May 2017 expressing her concerns over our new found evidence.  A representative of the Archbishop of Canterbury responded saying “shale gas should not be ruled out”, criticised the report’s author for his findings despite our report being a compilation of peer-reviewed science.

The Church conceded however, that if new research comes to light, it will be open to changing its position.  Dame Westwood hit back pointing out that the Allen report, cited by McKay-Stone, uses a faulty Baccharach sensor that has a serious design fault which causes the machine to significantly under report methane emissions.

Is this the Final Nail in the Coffin for Fracking?

MacKay-Stone said fracking would help the UK transition to a renewable energy future whilst helping us reach our climate change reduction targets. However, our report proves that using this method of extreme energy extraction will completely blow out our climate change targets under the COP21 agreement which 195 countries signed included the UK and would send us on a backward course.

This also completely contradicts the aims of The Climate Change Act 2008. If we don’t stop fracking, we will never meet our agreed climate change targets.

Find out more at  Read report in full

PLEASE SHARE:  Facebook  |  Twitter  |  Forward Email

Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Instagram

The Penis Is a Social Construct

A devastating interview with the author of the penis hoax paper

Rsz screen shot 2017 05 23 at 94018 pm.png?ixlib=rails 2.1

To me this shows the utter folly of post-modernism and their guru Foucault

With the academic pretensions that go with it , it is simply bullshit (or is that too kind?)

I was intrigued that they were imitating Sokal with his wonderful hoax paper 20 years ago.


An interview with James Lindsay, academic hoaxer. || Chris Beck

Source: The Penis Is a Social Construct

Teaching critical thinking to combat fake news and bullshit: You have to start young

This road sign sums it up!!

Within science there is fakescience from the left and right, not only rejection of global warming , but creationism, fracking ‘elth studies, and the usual anti-GMO, anti-vaxxer, pro-organic garbage

Thanks to social media, fake news, conspiracy theories, and health scams spread faster and farther than ever. The world is in need of critical thinking skills now more than ever. Fortunately, there…

Source: Teaching critical thinking to combat fake news and bullshit: You have to start young