A Question I Was Asked:



Why Do BBC Journalists Continue in their Lazy, Anti-Theist Journalism?








It is the typical BBC science-type approach. Really it is lazy journalism. These sort of comments have been repeated for so long by journalists who just can't be bothered to do their research properly: why bother to research when you can just repeat some tired old BBC mantra about faith and science being enemies? Yes, it is a very old idea but it no longer stands, if it ever did...

I heard it yet again! The BBC commentary (on the documentary I was watching) stated that the traditional gardeners all believed in God. This was stated in a most patronising manner as if to say, 'how ridiculous, of course, we now know better!' The same programme, towards the end, repeated the old, hackneyed and distinctly silly comment that... "faith and science, of course, always have to be enemies!" Surely it can't only be me that tires of such unfounded comments continually getting repeated? I have never known a serious Christian who did not enjoy and appreciate serious scientific investigation.


UK Apologetics Reply:

No, it is not just you. This sort of thing also infuriates me, and I am not a bit surprised that you heard these comments on a BBC programme. It is the typical BBC science-type approach. Really it is lazy journalism. These sort of comments have been repeated for so long by journalists who just can't be bothered to do their research properly: why bother to research when you can just repeat some old BBC mantra about faith and science being enemies? Yes, it is a very old idea. The religious and faith-type people are painted as being quite dull and unintelligent heads-in-the-sand people with a hatred of science, and scientists, meanwhile, are pictured as being bright, intelligent people who are ready to go wherever the science leads. It really is a kind of BBC, Guardian-type, leftist, atheistic mantra. One might have expected that by this year of 2014 AD, it might have got dropped. I also think it is a kind of 'gap-filler,' you know the sort of thing, 'we have got another ten minutes to fill on this documentary, what else can we say?' But it is lazy journalism.

Of course, the truth is completely different. Christians - as you point out - have always been great supporters of science. Even a little basic research by some of these commentators would show them that - in fact - Christianity was behind the whole scientific enterprise right from the start. The whole world of science presumed Theism, if not definitely Christianity, to be the ultimate truth, encouraging researchers to look more closely into the natural world to see how God constructed things, they did this with wonder, awe and respect. Only from about the middle of the 19th century when 'modern science,' as a new theory-driven, more philosophically-driven enterprise got underway, did this whole scenario change. Both Uniformitarianism and Macro-evolution were - and continue to be - theories. They cannot be backed-up nor demonstrated in any laboratory experiment. Even worse for modern science is the fact that when we dig up fossils (we now have them in the millions), they don't back up the secular view at all but seem to be more in support of Genesis. Over the last ten years, since I have been running this ministry, at least five really knowledgeable evolution-supporting scientists (all of them lecturers at the time) have privately admitted this to me.

So this oft-made inference that the first scientists went out with an eagerness to - at last - overturn superstitious Christian teachings is such a great untruth; these scientists were Theists, or Christians, almost to a man. On the contrary, they sought to establish and strenghthen Christianity through scientific knowledge. This they succeeded in doing. Their attitude was 'how wondrous are the works of God!'

Many of us consider that from around the middle of the 19th century true scientific investigation and research got hijacked by naturalist and mechanistic philosophy. The two central 'truths' of this were evolution and uniformitarianism, both unproven and unprovable and against a huge welter of evidence. It was the beginning of the end for modern science when they started believing that their theories were more important than substantive evidence. Only from that point did serious-minded Christians walk away. However, all Christians, I find, do love good solid science which is empirical and evidence based. But it is encouraging how many scientists - it seems to be more every year - who are now saying that the naturalistic and mechanistic outlook of modern science must change.

Robin A. Brace. April 25th, 2014.

UK APOLOGETICS HOME