“Modern recent studies in the history of science have shown that the pseudo-sciences continued to be influential well into the seventeenth century. As a result, these studies have further undercut the original premise that the beginnings of modern empirical, scientific, and inductive methods can be clearly differentiated from medieval, and Renaissance theology, pseudo-science, and occult philosophy. These re-evaluations by historians of science point the way toward the general and much-needed revaluation of the relative influence of science and pseudo-science on the intellectual foundations of the modern epoch as a whole.”
Sacralizing the Secular — p. 22
Interestingly, Aristotle said that philosophy is the queen of the sciences but here Aristotle was wrong because philosophy is but a handmaiden to the Queen of the sciences which is Theology. In either case, “Science” as a neutral and objective body of ideas does not exist. Ancient tradition claimed a foundation in philosophy. The genesis of modern science where it has had the feature of being scientific is in theology, as notable historians (e.g. Whitehead) have acknowledged. “Objectivity” has a basis in Christian philosophy or Christian theology, or else has no objective basis. The Christian must not be cowed by “science has proven…” Rather, the contest is the philosophy of ultimate despair vs. revelation of truth.
Again we would insist that science is dependent upon Theology. Theology remains the Queen of the Sciences. I couldn’t give a rat’s tush when Fauci, for example, tells me that “I’m just following the science,” because I don’t know what theology he’s following that yields up his “Science.”
Same fossil… different science.
The difference is not in the fossil. The difference is in the science because the different sciences are what they are because of the different theological presuppositions.
Science is dependent upon theology.
