Gairney Bridge

One of the big differences between God and the evil one in Scripture is that of truth. Whereas God cannot and does not lie (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18), the devil is referred to as the “Father of Lies” (John 8:44). Adam was created to be a prophet (at least in the general sense), meaning that he was supposed to speak the truth about God. Sin crept in when Adam listened to the lies of the evil one, served the creature rather than Creator, and distrusted the word of God.

It is generally disturbing to human being, created in the image of God, when someone lies (and yet lying comes so easy at times!). Yet, it is so greatly tolerated, especially when it is a tool in the hands of a minion of the evil one to assail a beloved child of God (and woe be to brothers and sisters in Christ who use the tongue in such a deceitful way!). For example, in his book The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom, Robert Morey includes the following quotes from a book on atheism (that is, a book on atheism written by an atheists for atheists and published by atheists), entitled The Art of Deception:

• “There is one thing you should always claim no matter what the opposition has said, namely, that the opposition has misstated your case. No matter what the opposition has said, you should make this claim.”
• “Appeal to ignorance … [and] act as if you are absolutely right. Keep harping on the fact that some of the things you have said, even if they are trivial, and that the opposition cannot disprove your case.”
• “Quoting out of context. Like any other charge, this one should be denied and continually denied. Keep insisting that the words you said were exactly as you said they were, that is, you ignore the charge that you quoted out of context, and pretend that you were charged with misquoting.”
• “Inconsistency. If you are charged with being inconsistent. Deny it! Deny it!”

And so forth. This brings me to the point of this post. On another blog, I saw a link being recommended (by a stanch skeptic) for a work written by Andrew Dickson White, co-founder of Cornell University, entitled  History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, published in 1896. The book is still in print and is popular on certain atheist/skeptic websites, primarily because the book is a direct attack against Christianity and blames Christianity for attempting to halt scientific progress. In fact, it seems that Bertrand Russell was fond of the book and frequently quoted from it (see these two articles that expose some of the poor conclusions of Russell, who was otherwise one of the greatest intellects of the 20th century).

What’s the problem with this? Well, it seems that White lied in the book. He (and John William Draper before him) made up the facts as they went along in their quest against God. As an example, White promoted the myth that Christians at the time of Columbus believed the world was flat. However, just the opposite is true. One medieval scholar has noted, “It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat” (see here for an article about the flat earth myth). One of the reasons this myth persists is because of the pseudo-research of men like White. Here is what historians and others have to say:

“While some historians had always regarded the Draper-White thesis as oversimplifying and distorting a complex relationship, in the late twentieth century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought. Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule.” Gary Ferngren, Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction

“Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship” — Colin Russell, Encyclopedia of the History of Science and Religion

“White’s and Draper’s accounts of the actual interaction between science and religion in Western history do not differ greatly. Both tell a tale of bright progress continually sparked by science. And both develop and utilize the same myths to support their narrative.” — Stephen Jay Gould, Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History

For additions comments read the articles here and here.

Is there a moral to all this? Yes: tell the truth.