Liberty Counsel: ‘True Science’ Always Supports the Bible

Steve Crampton and Harry Mihet of Liberty Counsel sing the praises of that abysmal Mark Regnerus study on gay parenting and claim that “true science” will always “reinforce and strengthen what the Scripture tells us from the start.”

22 comments on this post.
  1. Jasper of Maine:

    “True evidence” is evidence that always shows that my opinion is right. If you don’t got true evidence, you got nothing.

  2. oranje:

    These are the times I wish I really, truly understood the way they use the word “truth.” I can make a caricature of it, but as an outgrowth of the inerrancy of the Bible as a source for information, I feel like I can’t completely grasp how they use the word. Any ex-fundamentalists around who can lend a hand?

  3. Bronze Dog:

    These are the times I wish I really, truly understood the way they use the word “truth.” I can make a caricature of it, but as an outgrowth of the inerrancy of the Bible as a source for information, I feel like I can’t completely grasp how they use the word. Any ex-fundamentalists around who can lend a hand?

    I was never a fundie back when I was a Christian, but I know a DS9 quote that comes to mind for these people:

    “The reason I never tell the truth is because I don’t believe there is such a thing.” -Elim Garak

  4. ArtK:

    @ oranje

    “Truth” is defined very simply: “God said it; I believe it; that settles it.”

  5. busterggi:

    @ ArtK

    Actually “Truth” is defined:”I believe it so god must have said it:I believe it;that settles it.”

  6. reverendrodney:

    It goes like this: If it don’t agree with the bible, it ain’t truth.

  7. Michael Heath:

    Ed’s blog post:

    Liberty Counsel: ‘True Science’ Always Supports the Bible

    One of the most well-known conservative Christians celebrated by inerrantist Christians as an intellectual is Albert Mohler. This blog post represents his primary argument against facts which falsify the Bible; i.e., that those facts either don’t exist or are explained wrong since we know in advance that all findings must conform to the passages of the Bible.

    Of course Mr. Mohler’s is not an intellectual with any integrity. He’s also far too much of a coward to authentically confront the fact that much of what he believes based on some passages in the Bible are contradicted by other passages in the Bible.

  8. ArtK:

    @ busterggi & reverendrodney

    No, those are the reality of their “Truth.” The question was, how do they see the “Truth.”

  9. Modusoperandi:

    Typical liberals, laughing snarkily at these great men who are brave enough to stand up and tell it like it isn’t!

  10. Scott F:

    And “Liberty Counsel” is affiliated with Liberty University, and was founded by Liberty University VP Mathew Staver. One could infer that this is also Liberty U’s position. Though their Doctrinal Statement doesn’t explicitly mention “evidence” or “science”, it does proclaim:

    …it [the Bible] is therefore inerrant in the originals and authoritative in all matters. It is to be understood by all through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, its meaning determined by the historical, grammatical, and literary use of the author’s language, comparing Scripture with Scripture.

  11. Childermass:

    If it disagrees with what I think God said in my favorite English translation of the Bible and how I interpret that that text, then it is clearly false.

  12. timgueguen:

    Ah yes, comparing Scripture with Scripture. Like the differing accounts of Jesus and his activities. The Bible says it, so they must all be true.

  13. stuartvo:

    Quite post-modernist that way, aren’t they? “Everything is true, even the bits that contradict each other.”

  14. ursamajor:

    I am an ex-fundamentalist.

    There is no explanation – coherent or not for the fundamentalist conception of truth.

    I was an active church member, often read the Bible and was being groomed for future leadership rolls and there is no way in hell I could give you an account of whatever I was supposed to have believed at the time.

  15. Reginald Selkirk:

    ‘True Science’ tells us that you can breed animals with stripes by putting sticks near their watering trough. (Gen 30)

  16. dingojack:

    “… its meaning determined by the historical, grammatical, and literary use of the author’s language, comparing Scripture with Scripture“.

    ‘”… There’s glory for you!” [Humpty Dumpty said]
    “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ “Alice said.
    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’”
    “But `glory’ doesn’t mean `a nice knock-down argument,’” Alice objected.
    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.
    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean different things.”
    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
    Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.
    “They’ve a temper, some of them — particularly verbs, they’re the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”
    “Would you tell me, please,” said Alice, “what that means?”
    “Now you talk like a reasonable child,” said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. “I meant by “impenetrability’ that we’ve had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you’d mention what you meant to do next, as I suppose you don’t intend to stop here all the rest of your life.”
    “That’s a great deal to make one word mean,” Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
    “When I make a word do a lot of work like that,” said Humpty Dumpty, “I always pay it extra.”‘
    Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There.
    Chapter 6. Humpty Dumpty.
    Lewis Carrol (1871).

    Spot the difference! :D
    Dingo

  17. democommie:

    “He’d be spending a lifetime in analysis.” is the answer.

    The question is, per Joan Osbourne, “What if GOD was one of us?”.

  18. harold:

    “Truth” is defined very simply: “God said it; I believe it; that settles it.”

    That’s just code for “I want it to be true (not necessarily for nice or sane reasons), I’ll say it’s true no matter what the evidence shows, that settles it”.

    It is impossible to know what they “believe”. Some are undoubtedly consciously aware of using religious claims as a self-serving scam, most seem to be able to convince themselves but with intense cognitive dissonance and strong need to immerse themselves in propaganda and avoid criticism to keep it up, and some few may actually have actually strongly believe their ad hoc post-modern religious-y propaganda without mental distress.

  19. criticaldragon1177:

    Ed Brayton

    I have no idea what supposed study these guys are referring to but given the fact that they probably accept creationism, would they ever admit that any good science goes against the Bible? I doubt it.

  20. Bronze Dog:

    “If you happen to find a discrepancy between The Guide and the universe, it is, in fact, the universe that is in error.”

  21. kermit.:

    [raises hand]
    oranje – Raised Southern Baptist, the preacher’s grandson. Rejected literalism in my head at thirteen, gave up trying to salvage any deeper interpretation of religion by 18 or so.

    “Truth” for biblical literalists is a social construct. Think of a political boundary. We, the good Americans, can dispute with the evil Canadians where the boundary between our two countries is. They say it is there, we say it is here. If the two sides disagree, but we have not given up, we simply say that they do not accept reality yet, and for clearly nefarious reasons. If we can threaten them, manipulate them, bribe them, or outshout them, we can win. If they walk away frustrated and exhausted and let us act as though we had won, then we have won. Even if they outgun us, and we back down, if we never, ever, admit that we have lost, then indeed we have not.

    So also with, say Creationism and biology. The idea of external, verifiable evidence that fits one model but not another is not a concept they can grasp. They have been trained from infancy to avoid considering the consequences of their ideas or behavior, and to never entertain “what if” questions. This is why they cannot do science well (except sometimes in restricted “safe” fields, like physical chemistry), why they do not enjoy science fiction, are usually uninterested in mythology, and never, ever value evidence over authority.

    We have all been frustrated by these mindsets, which repeat nonsense but have never tried to verify the data for themselves.

    We have all been frustrated by arguing scientific matters with them:
    1. They repeat false statements or fallacies even after they have been disproven (wearing you down may win the argument, but an argument becoming useless is not even on their radar).
    2. They play at scientific arguments like children playing house (who have no knowledge yet of working, sex, or other adult issues). They think that demanding evidence, for example, is a rhetorical trick. They will demand evidence, then reject it when you offer it. If you ask for supporting evidence, they quote the bible or offer a link to the webpage of “an authority”. No grasp of the concept of “evidence”; you may as well be barking at them.
    3. Since Truth comes from an authority, who is established by his moral behavior (a winning smile and good hair helps), he will often argue by attacking your authority. We have all heard “There is no global warming, because Al Gore is a celebrity” or “Darwin was a Satanist”. They think these are somehow assaults against climatology or biology.
    4. Since Truth comes from God directly, they are confused by the concept of accumulation of knowledge. “Darwin was a plagiarist!” they might shout. We carefully point out that science is built by adding knowledge to previous discoveries of other scientists.
    5. And of course, learning often involves discovering that previous beliefs (that is, thinking that X is true) were wrong. They try to claim that this is a weakness of science; truth has to be eternal. And when it does change for historical and political and cultural reasons, their collective memory changes with it. To wit, “slavery is wrong” and “we have always been at war with East Asia”.

    Beliefs are tribal markers for them. It doesn’t matter how you arrive at them, as long as you believe the right things. Which means that these folks are well practiced at self diversion, thought blockage, denial, etc. In the scientific community, it is not the conclusions so much as how you arrive at them that counts. In the liberal political scene, it is values that count, and it is recognized that different folks might apply them in different ways. But to be a True Bible Believer and a Real American, one must believe the right things. Or pretend to yourself that you do.

  22. Modusoperandi:

    kermit. “We have all heard ‘There is no global warming, because Al Gore is a celebrity’…”
    Lies! There is no global warming because Algore is fat.

Leave a comment

You must be