Does minister really believe in science?
I read the interesting, well-written article by the Rev. William “Ed” Nicholson in your Sept. 2 newspaper. I was impressed that the good reverend used several scientific studies to substantiate his beliefs on the claims of “transgender.”
Let me now state that I believe in science and in scientific studies that use repeated experiments to form valid conclusions. Also, I believe in the conclusions formed by analyzation of massive amounts of collectable data by trained persons of science.
Now I have a question for the good reverend; is he consistent in his beliefs in the conclusions of science and scientists? Or does he cherry-pick science and then only accept the conclusions of science that support his pre-established beliefs? Does the reverend reject the scientific axioms (as “junk science”) that reject some of his pre-determined beliefs.
In my view, some in the religious community profoundly execrate these three issues of science: 1) evolution, 2) global warming (post 1900), and 3) the age of the earth. The science on these three is overwhelming and is widely accepted by most heterodox scholars.
When I was a mathematics instructor at a large out-of-state university, several on the religion faculty admitted to me that the overwhelming scientific evidence has convinced them of the validity of evolution. A recent Pope – an educated man – did not deny natural evolution. To many in the science community, evolution is not a “theory.” The massive amounts of data has most in science labeling evolution as an axiom of science and is now titled: evolution.
The other two issues, global warming/climate change (post 1900) and earth age is well-established and substantiated by huge amounts of data. It is interesting to note that global warming/climate change is tacitly accepted by most (if not all) civilized countries on our planet. Only in the United States has this topic achieved a controversial status.
The last issue, earth age has huge data refuting the idea that the earth is approximately 10,000 to 20,000 years old.
There are enormous amounts of scientific data supporting the validity of the scientific conclusions on all three.
How does Rev. Nicholson stand on these three issues?
Alex Bezjak
Uniontown