Slifkin & Science

R' Slifkin is a firm beliver in the indisputable truth of science. To prove how valid science is, he quotes (p.95) the atheist Steven weinberg:

One can imagine a category of experiments that refute well-accepted scientific theories that have become part of the standard consensus of physicists. Under this category, there are no examples whatsoever in the past hundred years.
[Dreams of a Final Theory, 1993]

Let's see. In 1893, scientists believed in a deterministic universe which had always existed with absolute space and time. Pierre Laplace's view was widespread:

An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed... for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

One of the greatest scientists of the time had called the existence of the Ether the best-established theory in all of science.

Then along came the Theory of Relativity, which revolutionized ideas about light, gravity, time and space; Quantum Mechanics, which killed determinism and certainty; and Big-Bang Theory which proved the universe had a beginning!

So there's no example of a refuted scientific theory!

Slifkin's statement that only "'minor' facts of modern science... will be overturned" is completely baseless. Just as there have been revolutionary scientific theories in the past, there will continue to be major changes in science. If Slifkin had been around in the late 1800's he would have considered determinism and steady-state theory factual! Slifkin says "not everyone may be qualified to distinguish between those aspests of science that can be considered adequately proven beyond reasonable doubt, and those aspects that may well be overturned in a few years' time. " How is he qualified to judge Intelligent Design?

Slifkin puts too much faith in the 'Scientific Consensus'. Just because scientists believe random, unguided evolution could turn mud into life into humans, doesn't mean it can. To quote slifkin on religious issues (p. 91) "there are questions and there are Questions" on Neo-Darwinism too. Life on Earth shows design, and there are way too many difficulties with the neo-darwinistic worship of randomness.

Not to say there's no difference between the science of today and the 'science' of medieval times. And Evolutionary Theory, although not comparable to the experimental sciences, helps explain the existence of all living things. But not without believing in Intelligent Design. Nothing else could turn nothingness into the amazing complexity of the simplest DNA and the amazing brain.

As for the conclusions drawn by the scientists, Slifkin disagrees. But gently. He says the "religious perspective" is different, or "a religious person would view it differently". It is as if there are two valid ways of viewing creation - the atheistic way and the religious way. Only for ID can he use more emphatic language, (p.288) saying ID is a "danger to religion" and that people who believe Neo-Darwinism is by definition atheistic are "simply wrong" (p.294).

To his credit, Slifkin does point out that many scientists are disingenuous [lying Koferim]. They claim to believe religion is compatible with science, while really believing science has replaced religion. But he considers current scientific consensus more exalted than it truly is.