Materialism is the newest and single most powerful religion in our world. It has taken over mainstream culture in America. Christianity is left to function as Ba'al-worship did in ancient Jerusalem; it is frowned upon by the secular culture, and even if it is explicitly practiced, the practitioner has to at least pretend to value materialism over his Christian beliefs. When someone asserts to a non-Christian that he believes in the Christian God, it is automatically assumed that he is just a little dumber than everyone else. Despite this, the non-Christian assumes that the Christian must also be a materialist, simply because believing otherwise is social suicide.

Behe establishes that materialists limit themselves; that is, since most of us are forced by society to be obligatory materialists, both theists and atheists are restricted in their beliefs. Behe makes the claim that this restricts the sciences, forcing them to accept the theory of evolution as universal fact, even if it does not apply everywhere. This results in the same problem that the geocentric model, Newtonian physics, or extreme Puritanism posed in their time: arrogance about their theory, with little or no proof to back it up.

Materialism provides atheists with blinders with which to overlook all the natural, unexplained phenomena in our world. Even as I write this, I have an inclination to assume that all phenomena can be explained by science, given my societal indoctrination towards materialism. For instance, no one can be sure that the Big Bang occurred. All scientists are sure of is that 13.6 billion light years away from Earth, there is a spherical wall past which we cannot see, and that the universe is expanding like a cosmic muffin. This wall is where cosmic background “noise” emanates from. Looking at this paltry evidence, I am not convinced that there was a Big Bang that created the universe nearly 14 billion years ago. I do not see how anyone could really know for certain, or have any idea, how our universe came into existence.

The beliefs of Christians are also limited by materialism. Christianity only exists as long as it does not break any of the taboos of materialism. Christians are welcome to worship and believe in God, so long as they believe that He is a figment of their imaginations, insignificant, and immaterial. Christians are allowed to believe in the Bible, but only as a storybook or a moral set of instructions. “Jesus could not have risen from the dead,” materialists say, “because it is impossible. If you believe this, you are ignorant, and you obviously have no grasp on reality. You zealous hack.”

One of the most important causes that Behe gives as a loss of freedom is that virtually all our information that we use to determine our own ideas is ideas supplied by others, and that the dominant ideas (ideas accepted by a majority of people) are considered to be absolute truth. This is obviously dangerous for Christians and others who believe in the existence of extramaterial forces in a world that is becoming more and more defined by materialist ideas, but it also dangerous for science in a more insidious way. When enough scientist gather around a theory, it is possible for that theory to become fact without any proof, but just by the consent of enough people. As shown by the drawings of the embryos, these accepted truths can often be incorrect. The embryo drawings also show how people will accept false evidence or only the evidence they want in order to prove these “truths” and will exclude evidence that. I personally think that this loss of freedom is a terrible thing. The concept of it highlights the fact that nothing is certain, and we have to draw our own conclusions, but it also points out the fact that most of the information we base our own ideas on are at best theories, and many ideas that influence us are probably wrong. When we realize this, it is possible to regain some of the freedom that is lost by the hegemonic influence of materialist science. However, I think we need to temper that freedom with some willingness to believe. If we get too caught up in not believing anything we are told then we don’t have any of our own ideas, just aversion to other ideas. It is possible to believe in both extramaterial forces and science. You just have to keep an open mind to both. The loss of freedom that Behe discusses is dangerous because it forces people to believe half-truths of material science and accept theories as more than they possibly are. It is something that is extremely important to realize so that we can form our own ideas and know that things we are being told and taught are not necessarily true, and that we must critically examine our ideas and the ideas of others.

This article was definitely eye opening. I have never heard an argument like this, and it is very intriguing. While I do not entirely agree with some of Behe’s points, he does make us realize that we should think for ourselves rather than accepting anything handed to us by a scholarly figure as the laws of nature. This relates to Percy’s thoughts on the depressed self. As he describes it, “the self has consented to the expropriation of every sector of life by its appropriate expert,” so that the natural desire of the human mind to question nature is all but destroyed by the idea that “if I don’t understand it, someone else does.” In addition to leading to the depression of many, this leads to bad science, according to Behe. He claims that modern scientists base their work on the work of others with the assumption that it is always right, and thus lose the free thought and inquisitive nature: the vastly important qualities that led to the work of geniuses like Einstein and Newton.
One piece of evidence Behe presents which I found interesting is Miller and Urey’s (Urey is not given credit in the article) experiments with the elements thought to be present on primordial earth. This was so interesting to me because the topic came up just a few weeks ago in my cell and molecular biology class, and I found myself questioning the rationale. My questions were put to rest by my professor, although I suspect my mind had already dismissed them subconsciously before I even had a twinge of doubt. This example really hit home, and made me think about the vast amounts of information I have absorbed in the first few months of my college career, on little more than good faith. With so many experts (professors) within reach, it is easy to turn into a kind of mental sponge without raising the slightest question. While the evidence supporting Behe’s case may be subject to speculation, I think it is very safe to say that his article raises an incredibly relevant question to anyone who wishes to learn about the world around him/her.

Behe claims that the materialist mentality that is predominant in the scientific community is resulting in an inability for Christian students and non-materialist to freely draw conclusions about universal questions, specifically evolution in the text. The essence of his argument revolves around the idea that, “in a scientific culture dominated by materialism, social pressure will push Christians to concede whatever is possible to concede as ‘inevitable.’” This social pressure not only relieves Christians of their freedom of thought, but will also hinder the progress in the field of science as well. Behe gives the example of the early evolution models of embryos created by Ernst Haeckel to demonstrate his point. For years people were unaware of the fact that Haeckel “took extensive liberties with the representations, apparently to make them meet evolutionary expectations more closely.” These ideas went uncontested for many years because, according to Behe, “the embryos drawn by Haeckel were what materialists expected Darwinian evolution to show” and Christians are not free to follow their own evidence of nature because “evidence (of nature) vouched for by experts is skewed or pre-filtered through an alien philosophy.”
Personally, I disagree with Behe’s entire argument. Peer pressure or sociological pressures cannot make a person conform if they are firm in their beliefs about the physical properties of the universe. Granted, you cannot get a degree from a major university with the understanding that God created everything around us, but you can believe that and also learn scientific explanations for these occurrences. Also, the youth of the modern world have a more open inquisitive temperament than the youth of the early twentieth century. The moral standard has clearly been on a decline since then with the civil rights movements and the nature parenting in the modern day; so now everyone with an opinion feels theirs is important. Therefore, there is no need to fear that scientific “facts” will go unquestioned now and in the future because of the monopolizing mentality of materialism. The irony of this situation is that the materialist concept influencing science is equivalent to the creationist mentality of the early sixteenth century, when the church’s influence was much more predominant than the new scientific ideas brought about by the renaissance. To me, it seems like Christians can’t take it when the shoe is on the other foot.

In this article, Behe claims that those who follow Christianity are freer in their ability to listen to learn about alternate explanations of the origins of life but that materialism holds back scientists in their ability to search for explanations. He claims that Darwinism has such a stranglehold on the scientific community that scientists are not willing to entertain any deviation from it. He notes that the problem with Darwinism is that there is a lack of evidence to make the theory applicable to the origins of life. He goes on to say that we should always base our explanations on evidence. It is here where I personally seem to find a contradiction in his argument. He says that the realization that the evidence to support Darwinism is not solid would make someone more free to think about intelligent design and what not. Yet, again, there is no physical evidence to support that an Intelligence created the processes of life. The only thing scientists know is that these processes exist. Now, whereas I agree that Behe should not have been chased down with a mousetrap and asked to put his finger in it because of his belief in intelligent design, his views regarding how to view theories based on evidence seems to be flawed. He uses the example from the scientific journal that science has supported absurd mechanism in its explanations but he does not bother to say exactly which ones were so absurd as to worth mentioning. If his views are that we should not speculate about things that cannot be supported by solid evidence, it would seem that a belief in a Creator would actually not be something Behe himself should find easy. Though I do not think that science and religion are incompatable, but they would seem to be in the mindset that Behe is using. One could say that, using this logic, nothing in science is truly provable. A man takes a pill, and he suddenly is cured of a disease. Did the pill cure him or did he simply happen to get better due to mysterious forces after taking the pill? Post hoc ergo propter hoc? No matter what scientific process you are talking about: gravity, biological processes, chemical, evolution, you can never be completely sure of how things work short of say, actually going back in time and watching animals as they develop over millions of years(of courses first we would have to find a way to increase one’s life span). All we can really count on are theories that happen to fit the facts

What I think Behe is trying to get across here is that science needs religion and religion needs science, because the fact is we have to exist in this world together, whether materialistic, or theistic. I can see how it could be damaging to both sides.
I think that the reason there is so much indifference between science and religion is that people are so scared to cross the line. Science can’t understand the supernatural aspects of religion and the whole idea of a creator & controller. People of religion, at least the ones I’ve been acquainted with are terrified of venturing into the scientific world. Just recently my Sunday school class was studying the first part of Genesis and for the first time I had really made a connection between God and science. It’s just like Behe says, “God could make life in any way He saw fit, and if He wanted to use secondary causes like natural selection…who were we to tell him otherwise?” Who is to say that God didn’t create the world as it has come to be. Maybe scientists have just discovered a little of God’s plan. Christians and other people of faith are taught that they will never understand God’s plan and his plans for the universe, thus they are opposed to learning about it. That is what Behe is saying when he says “Christians should be thoughtful and follow the evidence where it leads, confident that the truth of nature does not contradict the truth of God.” Faith is the most important thing in any religion, and if people are faithful enough to trust that God will not fail them, then they will be able to venture into the truth that science shows us.
On the other hand, scientists are just the same way. Their work is their religion. “Materialism is the water they swim in.” It is extremely difficult for them to understand the aspects of religion that can contribute to their studies, because they are afraid that they will be proved wrong. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…because we have a prior commitment to materialism.” They have to put their faith in science, as religious people put their faith in God.
In this world, balance is key. Many have ventured out of their own truths to see what the other side sees, and it is very freeing. When Behe says that Christians have lost a lot of their freedom, or really never have found it, he is completely correct. If people are ignorant of the world we live in, it is impossible for them to do what God calls them to do (as written in the Bible, and what many believers claim as their purpose). “I think it is much more important for a Christian to be fully aware of his intellectual freedom, than to be correct…”

Behe believes a loss of freedom has occurred due to the evil doings of materialism. While this loss of freedom affects Christians and their beliefs, it also disrupts science and its teaching. Behe makes a reference to the falsification of evolutionary drawings in high-school biology textbooks. These drawings, according to Behe, do not represent what a real vertebrate embryo looks like but rather what materialists expect it to look like. To him, materialists manipulate what is taught in schools and allows fiction to be taken as fact. But wrong material in textbooks is not the only reason Behe gives for the effects a loss of freedom has on science. He says in “a scientific culture dominated by materialism, social pressure will push Christians to concede whatever is possible to concede as ‘inevitable’.” This statement makes the claim that progressions in science will be met by a society afraid to accept a new philosophy or abandon the ‘old thought’ of science just to avoid the controversy. Materialism according to Behe will dictate what scientific topics are up to discussion and which ones are to remain untouched. But one of the most convincing claims Behe makes is his claim that everyone depends on others to tell them what to think scientifically. He believes people accept their truths by what other people’s truths are and are oblivious to anything else.

I believe Behe makes some valid claims in his argument on the wrongdoings a loss of freedom is doing to science. I agree with him that a majority of people do allow their thinking to be controlled by others. In fact, I would consider myself to be one of them. Personally I love science and for that reason am a human biology major here in college. But as Behe claims I sit in class, allow my teachers to tell me the way of the scientific world, study my textbook chapters and never question what is presented to me. Behe also makes the valid claim that materialism dictates what is taught in schools to children. Take evolution for example. This has been a hot topic for years that arose numerous questions; do we teach it in school? Does it infringe upon people’s religious beliefs? There are always people who are going to decide what they feel is right to teach in schools. And, unfortunately because of this many scientific wonders are left out of education because a “materialist” didn’t see it fit. I am a Christian but I am also a biology intrigued individual who thinks any validated scientific theory should be taught in school even evolution. I agree with Behe that it’s a shame society allows itself to be dictated by the what is acceptable policy.

Behe describes Christians as being robbed of the right to be able to believe what they fell is right because of materialistic views and practices of science. Behe feels that Christians are almost force-fed the ideas of the materialists about evolution without gaining any real sense of what to believe and what not to believe on their own. “…when the evidence vouched for by experts is skewed or pre-filtered through an alien philosophy, in what sense is a Christian free to follow the evidence of nature?” The result of one relying on what scientists have said, without discovering and researching a truth for oneself, can result in a blind following and blind belief. “Everyone, including scientists, relies on others for the overwhelming majority of information they accept about the way nature works.” This can be seen in Darwinism. Like Behe says, we believe that Darwinism is a theory because Darwin researched it, and it is easy to swallow everything he says, and almost trust in his theory because theories of science have always been forced upon us as students. It is with a heavy heart that I say that Behe is right in his accusations of freedoms being taken away. The materialistic view of science is what is taught in schools, with it being in every textbook and classroom around America. As for the Christian aspect, it is hard to really take all of the theories into account. Of course as a student and also a Christian the theories will be learned, but it is a challenge to outweigh scientific theories with belief. I do also believe that it is bad for science as well, due to the fact that with children learning all kinds of theories it makes science as a whole, seem very uncertain and a bit wishy-washy. As a student it is hard to realize that there are so many theories out there about how evolution has been traced and where it comes from. As a Christian it is also hard to take in these theories and apply them too my beliefs without blanketing them with the words of the Bible. Much like Behe, it is easy for one to say “I wrote the conclusion in my notebook without a second thought” about the subject of one specific scientific theory for the beginning of life. It is a struggle now, through more teaching and learning to actually take all of the theories in with no questions about what is said. I agree that these theories are just that; theories.

Behe is claiming that the materialistic thought that is over taking Christian and scientific thought on the subject of evolution is robbing the communities of the freedom of thought. As evidence of this thought, he illustrates how Christians are unable to consider another reason for evolution even though the evidence they find is supporting another theory. He says, “When evidence was reported that did not seem to fit the theory, it, not the theory, became suspect.” This is the kind of freedom Behe sees as lost among a world of materialistic thought. He says school children are taught evolution based on the photos of the embryos that look very similar, and this is enough evidence for them at the time to not ask any questions on the subject. Personally, I think his thoughts are interesting. I can see where Behe is coming from in that school age children are force fed the theory of evolution through materialistic thought. The image of the embryos he speaks of has been in every one of my science courses that has dealt with evolution. In a scientific community I think this is a barrier but could also be a door of opportunity to advance the research on the theory of evolution and the evidence that supports, or does not support it however the case may be. Since the scientific community research grows on questioning already existing theories this “loss of freedom” might spur different modes of thought on the subject. In fact, there are probably scientists already who are questioning the evidence of the theory of evolution. As for the Christian way of looking at it, it might be limiting if the people are not open to considering other possibilities. I think it depends on the person for if the loss of freedom over takes the Christian way of thought. It seems that it would only be a loss of freedom if the person involved was close minded on the idea of other possibilities and didn’t open themselves up to the idea of other possibilities. A theory is a theory; not a fact, therefore, no one knows the true relationship evolution has with the world. It may be that the research so far is correct and following the right path or it could be that someday someone will pull up a piece of evidence that opens up a completely new theory.

I find it rather ironic that Behe's reasons against a domination of materialist dogma are potentially very similar to the point of view of those against a prevailing nonmaterialist dogma. It seems that the fad of materialist doctrine “spread[s] more by social pressure than by rational argument.” Thus, people that get sucked in to this science-dominated movement blindly believe these truths instead of personally verifying them (as seen with Haeckel’s embryo that turned out to be fake). Since there is an obvious bias towards one side in the scientific community, “how can we ensure that children realize from an early age the extent of their freedom to interpret nature?” Therefore, this “socially contagious materialism” has an adverse effect on allowing Christians to grow up with their own beliefs. Ironically, I have heard all of these arguments from the other side. For example, materialists have concerns about children as well because they look down on the forced suggestion of Christianity that is prevalent among the group commonly known as “evangelicals”( a la Jesus Camp). Along the same lines, I have heard Christians being denounced for being “sheep,” or people who refuse to question the bible and stubbornly be narrow-minded. Whereas Behe clearly speaks out against a hegemony of the materialistic over our modern scientists and Christians alike, materialists may feel the same way about the spread of Christianity. Isn’t it incredible how the materialists are saying the exact same thing about the nonmaterialists? It is as if materialism (atheism) has become a form of organized religion that serves as the antithesis to Christianity. This serves as the biggest tragedy of this situation, because Behe recognizes this situation and serves as a mediator between the two radical ideas. I think a prevailing hegemony in either institution is a terrible idea. Like Chesterton says, it is of the utmost importance to continually talk about the origin of being. We must try to avoid people on either side “denouncing the mildest challenges to [their beliefs] as unspeakable heresy.” In order to achieve a more harmonious, open-minded society, Christians must be “confident that the truth of nature does not contradict the truth of God” and materialists must open up to the possibility of the supernatural as an explanation for the big questions. We must continue to promote intellectual freedom, but put a bigger emphasis on promoting tolerance in order to achiever progress in our society.

Behe believes that the loss of freedoms in science is bad because of this “socially contagious materialism” we’ve come to accept. “Everyone, including scientists, relies on others for the overwhelming majority of information they accept about the way nature works.” The result can be found in Darwinism., how “Darwinism is not judged the winner among competing explanations – it’s the only conceivable answer.” I’ve never realized this myself before this article, but how frighteningly true it holds! We are free to interpret what we want how we will; however, we rely on theories others have created with no proof, and we leave it to them to figure out and tell us! Behe also explains how we “tend to drift away from the contempt and toward the applause.” Who doesn’t believe in something they know will be accepted by others? Its less hassle, you don’t have to argue your points or find facts to justify your beliefs, even though everything else they believe may not even have proof! At the beginning of the article, Behe talks about being in Catholic school and the conditioning he received there. Now, there I can relate completely. After attending Catholic school for 8 years, the idea that God could do whatever he wants in whatever manner had always been in the back of my mind. I never saw evolution as a threat or questioned it, I just accepted it as what God did. Like Behe, I looked at a picture in the textbook and copied down my notes without questioning the validity of anything I studied. It’s a relief to be opened to this reality and realize what I’ve stopped questioning without proof; but its also sad to admit that I don’t think I’ll be able to catch myself every time I just accept a theory given to me. Especially what I learned as a child, it’s difficult to go back to everything conditioned into your head and ask if there was proof or not, then retain what you learned and reject what you once thought as true. Atleast now I can be careful with what information I retain; and I can question more often what I am unsure of.