However well-intentioned the contemporary scientific fraternity in pursuing with such rigour 'natural science', it must be apparent that what we are left with is in fact 'methodological atheism' - an approach to Science which, by definition, precludes any mention of God or supernatural activity whatsoever. To be sure, we must seek explanations for 'present phenomena' in terms which are naturalistic. This is consistent with the Biblical revelation of God as a God of order (1Cor 14:33) But historical events may in fact have been wrought 'supernaturally' by the hand of God. Only brute pride and prejudice will explicitly deny this possibility.

Am I the only one who is having some difficulty following Mr Layfield's arguments? Reading the source of this quote we find that 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 has this to say:

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints. Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

I can think of a very large number of women who would take serious issue with that! What Corinthians seems to be saying here is that women far from being equals are actually some third-class citizens - presumably ranking below the male children they bore! OK, I'm being a little unfair, I'm sure Mr Layfield would never consider silencing his wife in church - at least, I hope not. (In saying this, I should also point out that I have not yet been able to ascertain if Mr Layfield is married. If he is, I would love to hear his wife's take on this passage!) In the West, we did away with the subjugation of women years ago and to return to Biblical scripture is to deny our society's evolution.

Putting that aside, we can see the beginnings of some truly horrifying thinking. "But historical events may in fact have been wrought 'supernaturally' by the hand of God. Only brute pride and prejudice will explicitly deny this possibility. "

I put it to you, somewhat ironically, that it's precisely this brute pride and absolute prejudice that formulated this very statement. Prejudice born from fear and absence of understanding; pride in the blind ignorance that the Christian Bible is correct. A book whose very history, from inception to present day is bathed in disagreement and bloodshed. How complicit in that is your "God of peace"?

The political and religious consequences for modern culture resulting from the uniform application of naturalistic and materialistic presuppositions in Science teaching are immense. The able Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, Phillip Johnson has keenly identified how a body of elite professionals have been remarkably influential in the shaping of the moral character of today's generation by this distinctive approach to Science. But won't the integrity of 'Science' be threatened if we allow a divine foot in the door? Johnson, who has written extensively and with much helpful insight, has clearly shown a widening audience that defining scientific endeavour in such materialistic and naturalistic terms, contrary to popular opinion, actually stifles and cripples scientific progress. He rightly argues that the research process ought, with honesty and integrity, to pursue empirical evidence logically wherever it leads. But if naturalism is true, what place is there for such moral concepts as honesty and integrity? Perhaps it is not mere coincidence that there has been a rising trend of fraudulent Science in recent times .

This second paragraph is truly wondrous. Take this: "... the research process ought, with honesty and integrity, to pursue empirical evidence logically wherever it leads." Now I cannot disagree with that.

Then we get onto "naturalism". It's an odd word and I'll take it that Mr Layfield alludes to the philosophical definition: “a system of thought whereby all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes.” In proposing as he does, "... what place is there for such moral concepts as honesty and integrity?" Mr Layfield appears to suggest that in seeking truth where study leads us, dishonesty and moral decay are the inevitable consequences. Sorry to be blunt, but that's just crap!

If science isn't honest, peer review will expose it. Possibly the most basic tenet of science is honesty; following results the way they lead. Layfield's challenge to this is the complete opposite of what he's preaching. Sure, there are bogus scientists; people who have betrayed their own learning in pursuit of nefarious goals - Dr Grady McMurtry is a good example who writes in his explantion of the Noah story:

What was the physical structure of the Ark like? Using the most conservative figure for a cubit of 17.5 inches, the Ark was 438 feet long, 73 feet wide and 44 feet high. It would then have a volume of about 1,400,000 cubic feet or a volume equal to 522 rail road box cars. A larger vessel was not built until the Great Eastern, which laid the first trans-Atlantic cable in 1865. It would have displaced about 14,000 tons, drawing about 22.5 feet. Interestingly, the Bible says that the Flood of Noah covered all the mountains of the world to a depth of 22.5 feet, the exact amount needed for the Ark to float over the highest mountain which existed prior to the Flood. The volume of the Ark would have allowed it to hold the equivalent of 125,000 sheep sized land dwelling animals (a size larger than the average). There are only about 20,000 kinds of animals that would have been needed to repopulate the earth.

And this guy has a PhD! His arguments, while seeming reasoned to non-scientists, are utterly nonsensical and fail to stand up to even cursory scientific examination. For instance, this explanation of Noah's Ark contains gaping holes so large few adults could fail to spot them. Nuggets like this, "The volume of the Ark would have allowed it to hold the equivalent of 125,000 sheep sized land dwelling animals (a size larger than the average). There are only about 20,000 kinds of animals that would have been needed to repopulate the earth."

Excuse me Dr Grady, but there are millions of species alive today; and each is a specialist in its own habitat. Are you honestly asking us to believe that the 600 year old Noah simulated environments from equatorial rain forest through to savannah on a little wooden boat? How do you feed them all - on each other? And what about all the plants - didn't they get wiped out too! I could go on, but I expect that would be like gilding the lilly. I don't think you even considered any of this, did you Grady? You just looked at some raw data and figured we'd be so impressed by your doctorate we'd ignore the obvious. Well here's a newsflash pal, we're not all that gullible!

Now how about something a little more difficult. The Hebrew Bible actually says that the water rose to a depth of 15 cubits - which is not a precise measure like a modern-day metre; rather the length of an adult human forearm from the elbow to the tip of the index finger. Fifteen cubits therefore, using modern measures, can be anything from about 22 to 27 feet. Not the exact amount then. In fact, since humans have been getting steadily larger, it's not clear exactly what a cubit was in real terms. To state categorically that's "...the exact amount needed..." is about as scientific as saying Mt. Everest is exactly 1 mile high.

Now you may wonder why I detail Grady McMurtry in a text ostensibly about Steven Layfield. The reason is that so-called scientists like Dr McMurtry are precisely the sort of heretical lunatics that Biblical literalists like Layfield draw their arguments from.

To Part 1 To Part 3

6