RAPID RESPONSE REPORT

 

DEFENDING HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY IN A POSTMODERN WORLD

 

9/25/2000   #5

 

EDITOR:  Bill Crouse

 

POLITICALLY CORRECT SCIENCE: i.e., JUNK SCIENCE

 

The appellation "junk science" is relatively new to our collective vocabulary.  Almost on a daily basis we are subjected to new science breakthroughs only to find out later the report is disputed by other scientists.   One day we hear eating eggs is bad for our health only to hear the exact opposite days later.  Global warming is going to cause much of the world's landmass to be inundated with water.  Some food (usually what tastes good) or chemical causes cancer.  We hear almost as many cures for cancer as we hear of causes.  What's happening?  If we can't trust science who can we trust?  It's a question many are now asking, and within the scientific disciplines there is much consternation.  Everyone knows about the negative reputation of the law profession, but now scientists!  Yes, it appears scientists are now joining the ranks of politicians, and lawyers as people not trustworthy.  The late Carl Sagan, tele-evangelist, and high priest of naturalism, was very concerned about what he saw happening, so much so that one of his last books: The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark, was dedicated to alarming us about this anti-scientific trend.  Sagan was a holdout for the old paradigm of Modernism which had an undying faith that salvation would come through rationalism and science.  PM, of course rejects that possibility.  For the PM, truth is a social construct, and old modernistic science is viewed with much hostility and seen as an oppressive force.  In fact, science is seen not so much as a quest for truth about the natural world, but as means to bring about social change.

 

Here at the CIM office we collect at least 6-10 examples a week of either junk science or science which is ideologically driven.  About 10 years ago we were alerted to scientific conclusions which were forced by radical feminism or the homosexual movement.  These were purported to be scientific studies, but with one problem:  the facts were taken out of the thin air!  Current examples abound.  Have you heard of evolutionary psychology?  You probably didn't know that gossip was genetically based.  Read about it at Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/health/genes/genes/index.8sml   Earlier in the year, two scientists claimed that rape was simply a form of male reproductive behavior.  For a few days it was debated all over the web.  ( See the article from the Boston Herald

http://www.bostonherald.com/bostonherald/nat/rape01122000.htm    Recently, Peter Jennings did a documentary on Jesus.  Many of the scholars quoted were also part of the Jesus Seminar, a group, which it seems deliberately set out to deconstruct the NT.  This group decided which statements in the NT were true by a majority vote!  

 

There is probably not much that scares us more than the proverbial mad scientist.  It should, and we'd better be on our guard.  A revolution has taken place in the philosophy of science.  Remember, the scientists in the lab are not impervious to what is taking place in the culture.  They too, went to PM schools; they watch Hollywood movies, and hear news through PM lenses.  We must be alert to a scientific discipline which endeavors to be politically correct at all costs, or one which deliberately sets out to deceive in order to bring about a certain political end.  Global warming may be real, but we’d better listen closely to what scientists say is the cause and what must done about it.  The environmental movement is rife with political extremism and it often has radical social change as its goal.  

 

If you are interested in keeping up with dubious scientific claims there is even a website.  Go to:  http://www.junkscience.com

 

Here are a few thought provoking articles on the influence of PM in science:

 

"Partisanship and Special Interests can Leave Public Wondering What Science is Real."   This is a short article from the Philadelphia Inquirer.  http://web.philly.com/content/inquirer/2000/08/25/opinion/COMGENEVA25.htm

 

This article is a book review by Jon F. Fielder of a book entitled: Higher Superstition:  The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science.  The review appeared in First Things, but you can download it at the website of Leadership University ( a great website)

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9501/reviews/fielder.html

 

"What's Happening to the Philosophy of Science?"   by Ariel A. Roth.  The article is from the Journal, Origins.  Here is a quote from the article:  "Science is now perceived more as an activity with sociological dimensions.  The focus is more on the factors that determine the origin and formulation of scientific questions than on the answers to these questions..."   Here's the rest of the article: www.grisda.org./reports/or17_03.htm

 

"Are Truth Claims in Science Socially constructed?"  by Kenell J. Touryan.  Unfortunately, this article is not available at the website of the American Scientific Affiliation.  Here is the reference:  Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, vol. 51, Num. 2, June 1999, pp. 102-107.  This article is probably for the more serious reader. 

 

POSTMODERN MORALITY

 

Christian morality is based on an Uncreated Being who is wholly transcendent.  He created man to be a moral being like Himself.  Since He is the Creator, all meaning and truth is based on His essence or nature.  The Creator, because He is the Creator, makes the rules for His creatures.  These rules are based on who He is.  Moral absolutes therefore, exist and extend to the whole created realm.  Right and wrong can be known because this infinite God has revealed Himself in His Word and in His Son.  For the PM there is no infinite personal transcendent deity as just described, so there are no moral imperatives that can be applied universally to all mankind.   There is no one correct worldview; there is only diversity.   For the PM there may be many gods, but all are finite and the result of ancient myths which arose out of a social group.  Ethical right and wrong for a PM arises out of  the mores of a group, and what may be right in one group may be considered wrong by another.  One group may condone cannibalism, but for another, it may be taboo.  Ethics is never a personal matter.   For the PM even the person is a group construct.  Personal morality is of little consequence;  what is important is group morality, in other words, being politically correct on the issues.  We all are aware that President Clinton declared that his administration would be the most ethical in history.  For absolutists like your editor, that statement doesn't make much sense in the light of the last 8 years.  However, to a PM he may have no problem reconciling the president's statement and what transpired in the Oval Office.  Why?  Because the President took the right position on the issues and the economy was good.  At some point in Clinton's second term, his political advisor, James Carville, said that he believed that Bill Clinton was the most moral man in America.  Most thought it was a blatant political statement or downright crazy.  No, I believe he was sincere, because the private stuff is of little consequence in a postmodern world.  What is very important is that Clinton did not abandon what the dominant culture's agenda setters considered important on social issues like abortion, feminism, homosexuality, racism, etc.  He may have been crude to women as an individual, but he never backed down on women's issues.  So why get rid of him (as in impeachment) and risk having an absolutist in charge?

 

What drives the fear that most Americans have of evangelical Christians? They are afraid that Christians, if they gain ascendancy (get elected to national office) will impose their morality on them.  Remember the fear and the commotion caused in the primaries last spring when Republican candidate, George Bush, visited Bob Jones University?  Why?  Because this institution is considered to be the very center of intolerance.  Tolerance must be extended everywhere except to those who are intolerant.  As long as your attitude is that all worldviews are equally valid you will be tolerated, and will be perceived as broadminded (They may even think you are non-partisan!)    As a test to see how much you have been influenced by the PM culture, ask yourself this next time you are sharing the gospel:  Do you ever feel uneasy making the claim that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and that no one can come to God except through Jesus!!  Hay! that's the PM definition of bigot.

 

NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

 

As we noted in an earlier issue, the PM loves nonverbal communication.  What communicates is the visual and the symbolic.  Several years ago at the Oscar Awards ceremony, every one in attendance at the great hall wore an aids ribbon on their lapel.  No Hollywood personality dared to show up without one!  Not only would it have not been politically correct, it might have meant loss of income in not getting work.  Two places where conformity is absolutely essential is Hollywood-media circles and academia.  ("Can't we all just get along and conform to the current socially constructed truth!")  To understand our PM world we must be clued into the meaning of symbols and other nonverbal communication.  In a few weeks we will have presidential debates on TV.  After the debates are over, would you be surprised if a good deal of the analysis by the "experts" has to do with body language?  You shouldn't, because it's very PM to do so.  I'm not saying body language was not important in the past, but never more so than now.  "Did he appear presidential?"  "Did he exude honesty and integrity?"  These questions and more will be based on appearance alone.  Will it be the "alpha male" look or the "frat look?"  I may be exaggerating a little, but words will probably only be an issue if one of the candidates lets one fly that is not politically correct.  Remember the trouble Ross Perot got into when he referred to a certain constituency as "you people?"

 

Some bright reader may be thinking:  "But aren't words just symbols."  Yes, words are symbols, and PM are inconsistent at this point.   To really understand this negativity about words one has to understand a little about PM literary criticism.  To introduce you to this subject, may I recommend CIM's briefing paper  #52, "Deconstructionism: The Post Modern Cult of Hermes."  www.fni.com/cim/briefing/decon.html

 

FINAL NOTES

 

In the next issue we hope to be a little more positive and offer some strategies for reaching our PM world for Christ.

 

If this is your first issue and you are interested in reading previous issues they are now up on our website at     http://www.fni.com/cim/rapid.html

 

If you have been added to this list and do not wish for RRR to be clogging you mail box, simply send us a one word message ("unsubscribe") at cim@fni.com 

 

 

FOR CHRIST AND HIS KINGDOM

 

cim@fni.com

 

www.fni.com/cim