Lesson 3 -- Note on Science Textbooks and Catholicism

A couple of characteristics of many secular science textbooks (and sometimes, unfortunately, in other secular books, too) that I wanted to mention here.

One is the tendency to think that the only kind of "science" is material science, that is, knowledge concerning the material universe. Up until recently "science" meant knowledge and so included all other areas where truth can be found -- including theology and metaphysics or philosophy. When the word "science" is used only about material things, it tends to set up a sense that only material things are true or "objective". We'll discuss that more some other time.

Another tendency is to say something along the lines of: "science was suppressed by the Church up until after the Renaissance and Reformation, when finally men and women were allowed to pursue truth freely." Here is an example in the online book we are using for Biology. Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to find a biology text that doesn't have something similar:

Post-Aristotlean "scientists" were constrained by the prevailing thought patterns of the Middle Ages -- the inerrancy of the biblical book of Genesis and the special creation of the world in a literal six days of the 24-hour variety. Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland, in the late 1600's calculated the age of the earth based on the geneologies from Adam and Eve listed in the biblical book of Genesis. According to Ussher's calculations, the earth was formed on October 22, 4004 B.C......Ussher's ideas were readily accepted, in part because they posed no threat to the social order of the times; comfortable ideas that would not upset the linked applecarts of church and state.

There are many problems with this passage.

• The quotation marks around "scientists", implying that no Christian was really a scientist (historically untrue)
  
• The use of the word "constrained", a loaded word in this context.
  
• The factual error that inerrancy of Genesis necessarily means a 24 hours X 6 days creation (Genesis does not say this).
  
• The slur about "comfortable ideas" and "linked applecarts".
• Finally, Bishop Ussher was an Anglican -- the Catholic Church did not get into mathematical calculations about historical events in that way. St Augustine had said back in the 4th century AD that some of the Genesis "days" might actually be eons or millenia. (This comes up in your history)
  

Basically, the author might as well say that he does not know much about history or religion (no doubt true, but then humility is in order) and that he thinks that there was some kind of vast conspiracy to keep everyone ignorant.

This is simply historically inaccurate, but it is common when people state things according to their prejudices and what they have been told by people rather than looking into the sources themselves. (note: these are mistakes that scientists in particular should be wary about!)

SO:

When you read, look out for easy presuppositions like this one. (I will point them out sometimes, too) Basically, if something you read strikes you as wrong or too vague, file it as questionable in your mind. Sometimes you may find out later that there was more to the question and that new information helps you learn more about the issue. This is a good reading and thinking skill to work on during the high school years.

Go on to next section.