Someone ought to remind them of this.

It seems like just about every year this time someone wants to demonstrate the "scientific" veracity of the Biblical account of the Christmas star.

After all, from a Biblical point of view, there's a lot to account for concerning this astronomical phenomenon. The star appeared rather suddenly. It was extraordinarily bright, since it stood out from the rest of the heavenly bodies. And it moved. And stopped. And now it's no longer visible.

Some accounts want to credit the star to the close conjunction of certain planets in the local system, which reportedly happens from time to time.

But never that close, astronomers assure us.

Still, those who cling to this view suggest the wise men may have had bad eyesight and observed the close conjunction as one star. That helps?

Others speculate that the mysterious star might have been a heretofore unknown comet. But, of course, you can't prove one-time phenomena to the satisfaction of the scientific mind.

I suppose other explanations will arise over time, trying to make the Christmas star believable within a framework of scientific reasoning.

But the only reason we would want to do this, to achieve "scientific credibility" for an extraordinary Biblical account, is because we believe that something can only be true if science credits or confirms it.

That way be dragons, brethren. Once we start having to back up everything the Scriptures say with "scientific evidence" or by "scientific explanations" we'll lose the wonder of divine providence and the mystery of the miraculous.

We'll also forfeit the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture, and we'll end up having to recast the resurrection of Jesus within some materialist framework or other, making it some kind of mass psychological phenomenon or accounting for it as existing in some "salvation history" realm apart from "real" history.

But wait a sec: Didn't we do that already? Wasn't it that kind of limp-wristed theologizing that stepped aside for historical criticism and the undermining of Scripture's authority in churches everywhere during the 19th and 20th centuries? And wasn't the effect of submitting Scripture to science then (1) destructive for the authority of Scripture, (2) disastrous for the wellbeing of thousands of churches, and (3) determinative in vaunting science to the forefront as keeper of the epistemological keys?

That, at least, is the view of James Turner in his excellent history, Without God, Without Creed. And he's not alone in this view.

The Christmas star was just that - the star that led the wise men to Jesus.

If you need science to enable you to believe that, then you'll never believe the Incarnation, and the Babe in the manger will always remain just a quaint morality tale with no historical basis beyond the gospel accounts and no scientific evidence to validate as a genuine space/time experience.

Christian faith working with science is a combination powerful for many good things.

But Christian faith subject to science is, well, no faith at all.

T. M. Moore

Senior Theologian and Historian

...science, secularized and isolated, has become a satanic power, an idol which dominates all of culture.

  - Herman Dooyeweerd, The Secularization of Science

Before we simply reject Dooyeweerd's "satanic" notion of science, let's make sure we read it in context.

The great Dutch theologian wrote that science had become an idol. Idols are always implements of the devil, as Scripture consistently makes clear. This is because they command devotion that should go to God. Satan's gambit is to unseat God and gain all worship and attention for himself, an endeavor at which he will not succeed.

Idols also deceive, in that they keep people thinking in one frame of mind, and believing that one raft of assumptions represents the whole truth about the world, when, in fact, the world is altogether unlike what idols suggest.

Further, idols represent a diminishment of reality, and of the idea of ultimacy. They trap the notion of ultimacy in created things and impose the limits of created things on the very idea of possibility.

Secular science does all these things: Science commands the devotion of governments and the public by drawing inordinate sums of money and classroom time to their peculiar interests and concerns, dismissing all other sources of knowing and truth as irrelevant. Science deceives us with respect to the world, for it denies the very existence of a spiritual realm and all the realities that exist there. And secular science diminishes the notion of ultimacy, whether of being or existence, since all is reduced to time and matter.

We need science, good science, to be sure. But we must not allow science to become the idol of a secular religion. And the only way to do this is to challenge every presumptuous claim and expose every false assumption of the secular scientific agenda. And, instead, to pursue the work of science within the framework of a Biblical worldview, grounded in and devoted to the glory of God.

May the Lord raise up men and women wholly devoted to such a task.

T. M. Moore

Senior Theologian and Historian

We must have science. We want science.

Erwann Michel-Kerjan is happy to have been able to discover a "silver lining" radiating out of Superstorm Sandy.

And what might that be, we wonder? The fact that so many thousands of people around the country rallied to the support of perfect strangers? Or that neighbors, their homes in shambles, immediately began to look out for and care for one another? Or that, as usual, Christian organizations were there on the spot to offer food, shelter, and other kinds of help and relief?

Mr. Michel-Kerjan notes that the destruction wrought by Sandy was massive: "$50 billion in economic loses; large-scale evacuations; thousands of businesses closed in anticipation; and millions of Americans without power for days" ("How resilient is your country?", Nature, 22 November 2012). Nevertheless, he observes, "the catastrophe had a silver lining."

Prithee, what?

"...the way that science was used to improve decision-making."

That's it? That's the "silver lining" coming out of what may prove to be the worst natural disaster in American history? That, once again, science is brilliant, even practically Messianic in making life better and safer for us all?

Look, I agree science is a good thing. But science improving decision-making is not what I would call the "silver lining" coming out of Superstorm Sandy. You have to be a secular rationalist of enormous hubris and blindness to human sympathy to believe that the wow-ness of science is the big story coming out of Sandy.

Forgive me, but this is the showing slip of modern secular science, and it turns my stomach. Mr. Michel-Kerjan goes on to recommend to the rest of the world that it needs more science - "quantitative knowledge and leadership at the top" - if it wants to survive future Sandy-like disasters. Indeed, what the world really needs, he avers, are more "risk managers" to help their nations cope with coming disasters, people, he humbly submits, like himself. He writes that "for us, as scientists, engineers, and financiers, it is highly rewarding to know that our work will contribute directly to saving lives and helping millions of families recover from disaster."

I'd like to see that, indeed, I would. I'd like to see how Mr. Michel-Kerjan and his science pals would help a place ravaged like the New Jersey coast or Haiti or the Mississippi coast without the aid of generous, caring donors, volunteers, and people of faith who come to lend sacrificial help, not because science is leading the way, but because they love their neighbors as themselves - more than themselves.

Mr. Michel-Kerjan's article speaks to me about the hubris of science, which, at its worst, assumes it alone has the keys to knowledge and the means to save us from whatever the cosmos might choose to hurl our way.

T. M. Moore

Senior Theologian and Historian

Science should not prostitute itself to the cause of internationalism.

What does he mean by "Providence"?

Such innovations have both positive and negative potential.

The interface between science, ethics, law, politics, and economics is unavoidable.

Congratulations to the President on his victory.