A couple of years ago, I received a phone call from a theologian named Chris Baglow, whom I didn’t know. He told me that he had just completed the first draft of a textbook on science and religion for use in Catholic schools and colleges and wanted to know if I’d be interested in taking a look at it. A textbook on science and religion? What a great idea, I thought, and yet how obvious! Why had no one thought of writing such a textbook before? (Or maybe they had, and I hadn’t heard of it.) How badly needed such a book is right now. The world is now awash in propaganda for scientific atheism, and yet virtually nothing is being done to prepare our youth to meet this challenge.
The next thought that occurred to me was that such a book could be worse than useless—could even be a disaster—if not done well. As I talked with Baglow, however, my fears on that score evaporated and my enthusiasm grew. I discussed many issues with him, scientific, theological, and philosophical, and (from my point of view) he was hitting all the nails squarely on the head.
Chris Baglow’s book, the title of which is Faith, Science, and Reason, has come out at last, and I urge anyone who is interested in Catholic education to buy and read it. Baglow’s book would be an excellent textbook for high school or college courses, for homeschoolers, for adult education classes, or for that matter anyone interested in the subject. Though a Catholic text (carrying an imprimatur), non-Catholic Christians and Jews would doubtless find much of interest in it, many valuable insights, and perhaps even inspiration in developing similar materials for use in their own institutions of learning.
Here is the Foreword I wrote for the book:
The most important goal of education is to give a student a framework for understanding reality. For a Catholic, of course, the overarching framework is the Catholic faith and the revealed truths that it teaches about God, man, and the world. There is another order of truths, however, that we know, not by divine revelation, but by reason and experience. Of this kind are the truths discovered by science. How do these fit into the framework? A truly educated Catholic is one who is able to integrate the different kinds of knowledge he or she has, and keep them in proper balance and perspective. In other words, he or she is a person who does not compartmentalize life but has a coherent view of it. This is the primary reason for a textbook such as this. But there is another reason, which makes this textbook by Dr. Baglow of especially urgent importance.
A Catholic student going out into the world will face challenges to his or her faith. Some of these will be in the form of sharp questions about Christian beliefs. These questions may come from those who wish to mock or from those who sincerely wish to learn. In either case, the questions will not always be easy to answer for someone who has not thought much about them before. Or maybe the Catholic student has thought about them before, but lacking guidance has been left in a state of confusion. For example, he or she may be asked, How does the biblical account of creation relate to the Big Bang theory? How do Adam and Eve relate to what we have learned about the evolution of modern humans from Australopithecus afarensis and Homo habilis? How do spiritual realities, such as the soul, fit into the world of matter described by physics, chemistry, and biology? Is it possible to believe in miracles and also the laws of nature? Is scientific reason compatible with religious faith? What about life in other parts of the universe? Do the discoveries of modern science really imply that we are just material beings without free will, as some scientists have claimed? Does the case of Galileo show that the Catholic Church been hostile to science?
Some people, perhaps, avoid these questions because they are afraid that the answers may be unsettling. But avoidance only means that students will grow up nursing secret doubts and fears and be easy prey for the first “scientific” atheist they meet in college or later life. Nor is avoiding questions compatible with our nature as rational beings made in the image of God. We are seekers after truth. That indeed is what leads us to God, who is Truth itself. What we have to fear is not truth, but rather half-truths and untruths. And, sadly, when it comes to the relation between science and religion, what many people are told consists largely of half-truths and untruths. That is why this book by Dr. Baglow is so urgently needed.
There is hardly any subject about which there is more widespread ignorance and misinformation than the relationship between the Catholic faith and science. This ignorance extends to all sectors of society, from the “man on the street” to the professor at the elite university; and it has taken a terrible toll. Gross misconceptions about the Church’s teachings and about her historical record with regard to science have undermined the faith of many believers and have created suspicion towards religion in many nonbelievers.
It would be easy to blame this state of affairs entirely on the hostility of militantly atheist or anti-Catholic people. And indeed, for well over two centuries there has been relentless propaganda about the supposed warfare between religion and science. However, it is also the case that Catholics have not been vigorous enough in confronting these issues and telling our side of the story.
Talk to any audience of Catholics, whether adults or high-school students, and ask them what name comes to mind when they think of the relation of the Catholic Church to science and the result is always the same: “Galileo!” they shout out. That is almost all they have been taught on the subject. Have they heard of Niels Stensen? Francesco Grimaldi? Georges Lemaître? Every educated Catholic should—and yet almost none have. (No, I won’t tell you who they are. You will have to read Dr. Baglow’s wonderful book to find out!) Looking over my oldest daughter’s shoulder one day, I saw that there was a paragraph in her high-school biology textbook about the experiments of Lazzaro Spallanzani, one of the greatest biologists of the eighteenth century. I asked her, “Did you know that he was a Catholic priest?” She didn’t. How could she? The textbook didn’t mention it, and her teacher had never heard it either.
And it is not just on questions of history that Catholics have not been given an accurate or full story. Too often, what they know about scientific discoveries is filtered through the interpretations of scholars or journalists who are at best indifferent to religion and sometimes deeply hostile. Fortunately, in recent years many scientists who are Christian believers have undertaken to write about science from a theologically informed perspective. This includes Catholics, such as Fr. Micha Heller, a scientist at the Vatican Observatory who does research in quantum gravity; Peter E. Hodgson, a professor of nuclear physics at Oxford University; Kenneth R. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University. It includes non-Catholic Christians as well, such as Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project; Prof. Owen Gingerich of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; and the Rev. John Polkinghorne, formerly a professor of particle physics at Cambridge University, and now an Anglican theologian. Dr. Baglow has drawn upon the insights of these and other scientists to produce a textbook that is impressively sophisticated in its treatment of science while remaining highly accessible to students.
But it is not only the relevant history and science that have often been neglected in the education of our students. Much of the rich tradition of Catholic theology and philosophy has been neglected as well. What does the Church mean by “Creation”? What has she historically taught about evolution and human origins? What is meant by saying we have “spiritual souls”? How does God govern the universe, and what is meant by divine Providence? In what sense is God the “First Cause,” and what is meant by “secondary causes”? What is faith, and what is its relation to reason in general and scientific inquiry in particular? One cannot begin to discuss science and its discoveries from a Catholic perspective without the theological tools. Here again, Dr. Baglow has done a masterful job of presenting the crucial doctrines and the theological and philosophical insights of Catholic tradition in an engaging and illuminating way.
There are so many ways that a book on science and religion can go wrong. Some authors think it is necessary to jettison or radically revise doctrines of the faith to be consistent with what science says. Others think it is necessary to dismiss well-established truths of science to be faithful to Scripture. Some put science and Catholic theology into a blender and end up with a pseudo-mystical mush that is neither genuinely Catholic nor genuinely scientific. Some retreat into what amounts to nature worship.
Not this book! Dr. Baglow takes authentic and unadulterated Catholic teaching and authentic and unadulterated science and shows them to be in wonderful harmony. He makes his own the words of a great scientist, whom he quotes:
“Many people think that modern science is far removed from God. I find on the contrary, that . . . in our knowledge of physical nature we have penetrated so far that we can obtain a vision of the flawless harmony which is in conformity with sublime reason.”
Dr. Baglow’s careful analysis and lucid exposition make one apparent difficulty after another melt away. He shows that the record of the Church in relation to science is one to be proud of, and indeed quite glorious. The student will come away with a deeper understanding of the Catholic faith, of science, and of their coherence with one another.
We are all deeply in Dr. Baglow’s debt. There has been a terrible drought of classroom instruction in this area. This book is not just a few drops of water on the parched earth—which itself would have been welcome—but a drenching, reviving rain.
Stephen M. Barr is professor of physics at the University of Delaware and author of Modern Physics and Ancient Faith and A Student’s Guide to Natural Science.
Comments:
Look, I am all in favor of you having the freedom to believe what you wish. But here is what Christianity asks us to believe: That a cosmic Jewish zombie -- who is actually three entities rolled into one, including the fact that it is its own father -- can make you live forever, provided you communicate to him telepathically that you accept him as your master, so that he can remove from your soul an evil force that is present in humanity because a talking snake convinced a woman made from a rib to eat the fruit of a magic tree.
Now, if you want to belive such a notion, go right ahead -- but don't try to pretend that your belief system is in any way compatible with science and reason -- swallowing the blatantly irrational constitutes the rejection of science and reason.
for mankind. We do not consider it horrific to be "anti-plumber" and we do not have
politicians campaigning to "put plumbing in it's rightful place". Even though we could
get along without scientists a lot easier then without plumbers. And why do we have
to be so obsessed about saying we are "not in conflict with science"? After a while
talking like that gets to sound like appeasement. We may not be in conflict with the
actual facts of the universe. But a large number of scientists, and their admirers desire
to be in conflict with us and it only requires one side to make a conflict. Groveling is
rather undignified, don't you know.
I'm not a scientist, but as an engineer who has been exposed to a lot of science, I believe the most appropriate response to the wondrous insights which science continues to unfold is to become ever more enthralled with the beauty and artistry of it's author, our Father.
Your blatant ignorance concerning Scripture and its claims displays for all the world that you haven't even conducted the most basic level of scientific inquiry (research).
If you had bothered to be "scientific" or "rational", you would find that the Church has long held that Scripture is not to be interpreted through a lens of literalism, that the accounts of Adam, Eve, and the Serpent as depicted in Genesis are heavily laden with symbolism and metaphor, and were not written as documents making historical claims.
Adam is a name coming from the Sumerian word meaning "red clay". The serpent was one of the religious symbols of the polytheistic peoples living around the tribes of Israel. The Seven Days of creation mirror the liturgical week of the Hebrew people.
Furthermore, one wonders if you've even read what you are criticizing. If you had, you'd know there are TWO creation accounts in Genesis. You allude to one (wherein the woman is crafted from Adam's rib), and ignore the poetic symbolism of that creation. The author meant to convey that a woman should be loved with all a man's heart, and near to it as the ribs themselves. A good women can protect and enrich a man's life, just as the ribs protect his very life.
You ignore the first creation account, which has the two created simultaneously, with no mention made of ribs ("God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created THEM" Gen 1: 27).
Next time, do your research and spare us the baseless slander.
People like this should, in the name of intellectual honesty, actually see what we believe before they criticize it. Anyone who reads Stephen Barr or Francis Collins could not possibly say with any intellectual competence and intellectual honesty that what we believe is inconsistent or not nuanced and coherent. People like Daniel Dennett who Barr and Collins argue with and have clear discussions, differ greatly from "Michael Smith," Christopher Hitchens ("God is Not Great" is a joke of a book in its intentional avoidance of educated non-fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible…he doesn’t even bother to find out what a Catholic, say, might say about the meaning of the text), Dawkins to a lesser extent, and people in the Brights movement who present what they disingenuously state to represent Judeo-Christian belief (as Michael Smith's comments on the "cosmic zombie" does). I am sorry, but lack of genuine effort to learn about what you are criticizing really bothers me…it is adolescent in its mode of attack, its reluctance to examine its motives and laziness at serious study and philosophical inquiry.
I have read Dr. Baglow's book and found it to be breathtaking and authentically Christian (vs. merely fideist). A must read for anyone who is committed to the harmony of faith and reason.
Mr. Taylor, I suggest that you stop using the internet, your refrigerator, telephones, electrical devices of any sort, antibiotics, painkillers, modern medicine in general, automobiles, planes, etc. Then, if you still feel the same way, you can deliver your message to First Things by carrier pigeon.
What an absolutely moronic thing to say: "what is so important about science anyway" followed by "we could get along without scientists a lot easier then without plumbers."
Right. Forget all modern medicines, agricultural advances, IT technology, cures for cancer, antibiotics, genetic screening, and of course the computer you're using to write this nonsense -- who needs them. But hey, doesn't my toilet work well?
And no, a large number of scientists don't "desire to be in conflict with us" -- far from it. There are few who even enter into the fray, and they'd rather not have to waste their time. Rather, they feel compelled to respond to ridiculous comments like yours in an honest attempt to rescue education and the minds of our young from the stifling stupidity and ignorance of the "religious right." And no, I'm not an atheist. I'm ordained, in fact (though not Catholic).
As a Christian, I find your comments embarrassingly naive and exactly the sort of thing that reflects so poorly on all of us. This is why books such as Baglow's a few others are so badly needed today.
What is your opinion of the late Jean Paul II's encyclical Fides et Ratio?
Michael Smith: Before expressing your disbelief in something it might be well to understand something about the thing you refuse belief in. A parody of the object presented for belief may be cute - but not at all a help towards a rational evaluation of the object. And disbelief in something which, if true, would be of enormous importance, should be based on something more than a parody.
jj
But I would like to know how religion is blatantly irrational from the perspective of science. I mean, can you please explain to me how it is blantantly obvious that the laws of nature can never be broken. I've always been under the apparently entirely delusional impression that science itself cannot prove or disprove if the laws of science can be suspended by an entity outside of them. So I look forward to your proof that science can prove such a thing.
Teilhard saw what is often ignored, forgotten, or repressed; namely, the element of faith which lies at the very heart of science. It is unlikely that anyone would become a scientist if there were not in nature some supremely attractive center and some assurance that scientific inquiry would lead one towards the truth. In setting out upon the adventure of science, one has to believe that the one who seeks will find. The health and vitality of science itself bespeaks of a universe which invites both our study and our adoration.
And why is reason better than non-reason, assuming you can explain what it is and how I can acquire it? Take, for example, modus ponnens:
If A, B
A
Therefore, B
This is a logically valid argument. Why should I accept this? And if I do, what precisely am I accepting? Is it a deliverance of the empirical sciences? No, for it is not an empirical claim. It is a necessary truth for which there is no empirical referent. But if that is the case, then your "reason" is "invisible," unchanging, immaterial, and has no empirical referent. So, your mind--the block of meat you claim is merely a brain--for some odd reason has direct contact with that which does not come through senses and has no properties that are extended in space. Sounds like you've got your own telepathy issues.
Have you really got nothing better to do at 5:17am than construct straw men so silly that my high school students could demolish them without breaking a sweat? Like sleep, for instance? It might not cure your ignorance of history or Church teaching, but at least it would spare the rest of us who come here for a serious read.
At the least, it's awfully important for those who are called to a vocation in science, and they usually don't appreciate it being belittled and misunderstood by their religious brethren simply on account of ignorant atheistic blustering. And besides, as Mr. Johnston points out by way of Fr. Jaki, as Catholics science is ours, and we want it back.
Mr. Barr, you are a scientist. You can't tell me that the Discovery Institute is actually conducting real science or that Stephen Meyer is contributing ANYTHING to the pursuance of truth. Or, do fall for that crap, too?
Speaking of rationality: Is it rational to tell people in Africa - where 1 in 3 have AIDS - that they will GOT TO HELL if they use a condom? I think not. In fact, one could argue that that is negligent homicide.
Why not read the book? While you're at it, research whatever references it lists. If you can, open your mind to what you learn. It never ceases to shock me how ignorant we in western society are of its foundations. Read the book, I dare ya!
What does this mean?
One could say that to embrace atheism requires that you deny your common sense. For example, atheism requires materialism, that all that exists is ultimately matter absent final causes. But "rational thought," something you claim to believe in, doesn't seem to be material. When I, for example, think of the law of excluded middle as a principle of reasoning, the law is nowhere present in the physical universe.
Second, you seem to believe that one ought to be rational. I agree. But if human beings have no intrinsic purposes or natural ends that demand that their thought-lives be properly ordered--which is what you must believe as a materialist--then it's unclear you can make sense of the claim that one ought to be rational.
Common sense seems to teach us that rational thought is immaterial and that human persons have certain ends that, if violated, result in an injustice against oneself. But this understanding depends on beliefs you deny: non-material entities and final causes.
So, apparently, if I am to become an atheist I have to abandon my common sense. That doesn't seem too rational to me.
is held to be a good thing that is fine. Plumbing is a good thing too as anyone who has
heard descriptions of a Third World city would aggree. Why do people go into a tantrum at the very idea that science should not be worthy of genuflection though? That was my question.It seems to me that we are not expected to respect science like any other occupation(or "vocation" whatever the difference is expected to be, other then snobbery) but to give it inordinate reverance. If we have to constantly assure everyone that we are "not in conflict with science" then we are indeed grovelling. I am a library assistant
and I certainlydo not claim that librarians have "a rightful place", even though they have just as much a claim to it as scientists. Lots of occupations do things that make life
more endurable. Some occupations seek knowledge as well. What is it about scientists
that gives them a right to snobbery? And why should other people fall in line like happy
little serfs?
that when religion and science disagree on any issue it is religion that must concede. That is quite simply a demand for idolatry and one that cannot possibly be mollified by any assurances of "respect". When science demands absolute loyalty then there is necessarily a conflict whether we like it or not.
Science is the process by which humanity discovers Natural Revelation which is also the Authoritative word of God. So Creation and Scripture are only in conflict if you interpret the Bible as being antithetical to the findings of Science. Only those from a Biblical Literalist background view Natural Revelation as idolatry/heresy - that is, they deny the truth of half of God's revelation.
On being rational as "good" or as one "ought to be." Again, I feel that this is assigning value where it doesn't belong and also circular- that there is a cosmic reason, or scales in the sky weighing and deciding justice. As above, if you first assume that this cosmic justice exists you cannot then claim that something else (reason) justifies its existence based on the fact that cosmic justice exists. Is it possible to imagine a situation where a being did not evolve rational thought or even the opposite of it? I think so. More succinctly, rational thinking could easily be subjective and born of materialistic, non-purposeful outcomes.
For the original comment you quoted, I was not speaking about philosophical debates like these - which I truly enjoy - but rather the more egregious fact-claims such as: the virgin birth, transubstantiation, the trinity, literal interpretations of the bible, the resurrection, the assumption, etc. The only response for such claims again must be: god can do anything.
We should do this more often, Beckie. I like you. Maybe I'll check your book out of the library sometime and cuddle up to some Pro-Life jibber jabber.
How to read the account of the fall
390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
It's paragraph 390 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
While there is no necessary contradiction here with the evolutionary point of view, it seems to me that most of the people who readily accept the truth of evolution of all species from a common ancestor, and who profess Christianity, do not accept the above "certainty of faith." I would hazard a guess that most regularly practicing Catholics in Western societies do not give the assent of faith to this proposition.
Let me distinguish Christians committed to the unity of faith and reason, from fideists and others who are comfortable with a division between these principles. My comments on Catholics apply, I think, to those Christians who share the Catholic perspective on reason.
It's not that many Western Catholics have elaborated intellectual positions for themselves that they can rigorously defend, and have, as a result, quietly jettisoned the Judeo-Christian belief about the origins of evil. It is, rather, that they have had no consistent and credible formation. Their teachers have been adrift and on the defensive for the best part of half a century.
Catholic theologians, when they haven't been actively destroying the foundations of faith, have struggled to come to terms with what might be called the Zeitgeist - a triumphalist materialism. That spirit throws discovery after discovery into the crowded mind-space of Western societies, distracting attention from its underlying conceptual difficulties with a dazzling display of novelties and a smoothly functioning apparatus of popularisation. And very real challenges are being thrown out.
Discerning the wheat from this chaff, determining which developments represent seriously challenges to Catholic understanding, which can be immediately countered, and which require a watchful patience, is a full-time activity for a particular breed of Catholic educators and commentators, and is beyond the means of most who have the day-to-day charge of educating the faithful. The resulting intellectual uncertainty communicates itself with devastating effect.
For all Christians, it seems to me, the fulcrum and prism of history and of faith is the Resurrection of Christ. It is through this historical event that the Christian must see and "know" everything. The Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection are God's imprimatur on the prior self-perception of the Jews in human history, and on Jewish understanding of the human relationship with God. That, crucially, includes the Fall.
The problem for a comfortable accommodation to science of Catholics and others who insist on the unity of faith and reason, is that God insists on intervening in human affairs, and His most startling intervention has been the Resurrection. There is no place for the Fall, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection or the Ascension in the scientific narrative. Yet the meaning of existence itself is stamped in the physical and historical reality of the world by these events. The Resurrection and Ascension tell us something about the capabilities of the human body that can never be apprehended by science. Yet these aspects of human biology are not "spiritual", not from some different realm of experience. They are concrete, they have a concrete exemplar, and a multitude of witnesses. They are as definite, practical and historically observable as anything that can be determined by biological science.
It seems to me that Catholics must continually make it clear that their agreement with scientific process and understanding stops at these points, and is superseded by the understanding of particular historical events. I am not suggesting that, on issues like embryonic stem cells, or cloning, or abortion, Catholics should not argue, wherever possible, on grounds on which their non-believing opponents will be prepared to engage them. Rather, I am saying that all such clashes must be prefaced with a statement of the enlightenment of Revelation; not for the benefit of the opponents (although who can tell what may occur) but for the benefit of the communities of faith
http://books.google.com/books?id=gK5LoeW8J2YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Peter+Kreeft%27s+Handbook+of+Catholic+Apologetics&source=bl&ots=DxrLhfD9Yj&sig=y9v0rrY9vJRHanekmWl7Q26ywp8&hl=en&ei=zOeSS_r5H82ztgeagMnUCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
1. Collins, C. John. Science and Faith: Friends or Foes? Crossway, 2003.
2. Poythress, Vern. Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach. Crossway, 2006.
3. Morris, Tim, and Don Petcher. Science and Grace: God’s Reign in the Natural Sciences. Crossway, 2006.
If A, B
A
Therefore, B
This is a logically valid argument. Why should I accept this? And if I do, what precisely am I accepting? Is it a deliverance of the empirical sciences? No, for it is not an empirical claim. It is a necessary truth for which there is no empirical referent."
What!? No empirical referent? Last I heard, EVERY rule of logic can be implemented using gears and levers. In fact, if you have a so-called rule of logic that can't be built and tested mechanically, it's false.
Get a good book on brain function. Look at the experiments where a volunteer first thinks of listening to music and then switches to doing math problems in his head. Watch the areas of the brain that are working shift as the thoughts shift. Why is this necessary if thoughts are not material and located in the brain? If thought is immaterial, what's all that activity in the brain for? How do immaterial thoughts affect material muscles? Materialism has answers for questions like these, duallism or whatever you want to call it doesn't.
FB: "When I, for example, think of the law of excluded middle as a principle of reasoning, the law is nowhere present in the physical universe."
Sure it is. You can build a mechanical computer that will implement the law of excluded middle or any other logical principle. The principles of logical reasoning are implemented in the mechanics that carry them out and those mechanics are part of the physical universe, as are the neurons we think with.
FB: "But if human beings have no intrinsic purposes or natural ends that demand that their thought-lives be properly ordered--which is what you must believe as a materialist--then it's unclear you can make sense of the claim that one ought to be rational."
Do you really think it makes no difference if you see a hungry tiger and think, "Oh, let's pet the fuzzy kitty!"? Surviving is one of the most important intrinsic purposes of all healthy human beings and it depends on having your internal model of the world and your thoughs about that model at least reasonably close to the real world.
FB: "Common sense seems to teach us that rational thought is immaterial ..."
Maybe to Denyse O'Leary, but people who actually investigate the brain and thought instead of relying on "common sense" (which is what Einstein defined as the collection of predudices acquired by age 18) quickly see that not only is thought material, but we can actually see it in action, at least crudely.
The problem with a reductionist approach to the mind is that, epistemologically, it saws off the branch it's standing on. Empiricism is based on sensory information which is experienced in a phenomenological manner. In some ways, the honest empiricist is really a kind of dualist, putting his faith entirely in sense data (phenomena) rather than dealing with things-in-themselves (noumena). Husserl knew it in the early 20th century and Kant knew it in the 18th. You can't entirely eliminate the subjective through science because science is only possible because of subjectivity (e.g. the subjectivity of scientists). You don't /know/ or /see/ that thought is material, you only see the activities of the brain. That is, you base your eliminative materialism on a non-material sensation.
/Mr. Barr, you are a scientist. You can't tell me that the Discovery Institute is actually conducting real science or that Stephen Meyer is contributing ANYTHING to the pursuance of truth./
Shaun, perhaps if you did some research you would know that Dr. Barr has been very critical of the Intelligent Design movement:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design
You got a lot of comments with your criticism. It's interesting, science gets worshiped like a sacred cow (good book: Science is a Sacred Cow), and scientists, like priests, get asked about everything and treated like they are infallible. Just look at the big to do about Stephen Hawking.
But I got two problems with your critique.
First, scientists and plumbers. Scientists are like plumbers in one important way: doing science is a job. Scientists can be smart or stupid, just like plumbers, and some stupid people make great scientists, and some smart people make terrible scientists, just like with plumbers.
Scientists are not like plumbers in the way that science is not like plumbing. Plumbing is only done for the sake of something else, for some pretty mundane end. It doesn't really require much imagination or thought or exploration. Science is the investigation of the world. Though scientists are not more important or special than anyone else, there is nothing more important than science. And it's great fun. Feynman said that "Science is like sex; sometimes something useful comes out but that's not why we do it." Maybe not the best quote for Catholics, but there you go.
Second, science is very useful. Without science, there would be no plumbing.
Ah yes Shaun, when you are unable to make an intelligent response to the text play the AIDS card.
2. AIDS in Africa
• Catholic teaching is binding only on Catholics.
• No government in Africa is a Catholic theocracy i.e. the Catholic Church has no power to compel any government or medical personnel to not promote condoms.
• There are only 5 “Catholic” countries in Africa i.e. countries in which Catholics form more than 50% of the population.
Here are the HIV levels for these 5 countries ... 2007 (most current stats)
Equatorial Guinea - 94 % Catholic – 3.4 % adults with HIV –up from 3%
Burundi - 65 % Catholic - 2 % adults with HIV – down from 5%
Lesotho - 54 % Catholic – 23.2 % adults with HIV – up from 23%
Lesotho is a land locked country and many of its men go to the mines in South Africa (18.1% population living with AIDS) for work.
Congo - 50 % Catholic – 3.5 % adults with HIV – down from 5%
Angola - 50 % Catholic – 2.1 % adults with HIV – 2.1 down from 4%
Source of HIV data http://www.avert.org/subaadults.htm
• In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations' AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa. UNAIDS quietly disowned the study.
• Dr. Edward C. Green, an anthropologist at the Harvard University School of Public Health. “You cannot show that more condoms have led to less AIDS in Africa.”
• In a 2008 article in Science called "Reassessing HIV Prevention" 10 AIDS experts concluded that "consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa."



