Some years ago, I had occasion to collect a water sample from a small pond south of Lake Manitoba. The fun part was going back to the lab and looking at a drop of the sample under the microscope. I was sampling lakes and ponds every day, but on this occasion I screamed at what I saw. There before my wondering eyes were relatively large, brownish algal cells with fierce looking spines. They were spinning slowly as I watched.
The beauty of such distinctive cells is that they are easy to identify from pictures. It is not like birds, where you know what you are seeing, but you can’t find a picture or description that matches anywhere. In this case, pictures quickly told me that this was Ceratium hirudinella. Google this name to find photos online. You will quickly understand why I was so excited!
Probably nobody has viewed algae from that pond either before or after my visit to the area. But that does not mean the algae were not there! We know that nature is real and we can count on it to be the same and to act the same today, tomorrow and in the past. I own a book for example, written by a Francophone monk Frere Irenee-Marie of Montreal, who published this book in 1939. It includes pictures and descriptions of beautiful single celled green algae called desmids. This book was useful to me, many years later and far from Quebec, because these algae can be counted on to act the same both far and near, and down through the years. This understanding of nature as dependable, is basic to the practice of science.
Dr. Kurt Wise, in his book Faith Form and Time (2002) points out that our expectation that nature can be studied, is in fact based on the Bible. Concerning Genesis 1:1, for example, Dr. Wise declares “Implicit in the very first statement of Scripture is the claim that the physical world does exist … Thus implicit in this statement is the claim that the truth about the physical world can be known and should be known.” [p. 31] Thus “the physical world exists, that information about it should be known … if any of these claims were false, the study of the physical world would be unjustified and impossible.” [p. 33] Scientists may and do disagree on interpretations of observations, but all/most of them agree that what they are looking for, is truth. Since the Middle Ages, this worldview has dominated naturalist agendas as dedicated people developed the pursuit of science.
A recent article in Nature1 calls the above description of science “Dominant science” or “Western science.” This approach is rooted in the Old Testament view that nature is amenable to study because God made it and God is dependable. But the article in Nature recommends that we abandon this western understanding of nature with its methods such as experiments, measurement and conclusions and instead embrace “other ways of knowing.” [p. 333] The article recommends that we support “philosophies, methodologies, criteria and worldview” from ancient peoples with their pagan religions from around the globe. Thus the authors declare “White scholars must recognize read and cite Indigenous scholarship. But they must also engage with it in deep, relational ways and be open to fully understanding its messages, even if it makes them uncomfortable – especially, we argue, if it makes them uncomfortable.” Ideas about sacred sites and animal spirits must be recognized under this scenario as “real knowledge.” [p. 333]
One person who objects to this new view of science (which is not based on the actual study of nature) is atheist Jerry Coyne. His blog “Why Evolution is True” informs us that the influential journal Nature is lending its support to the idea that we should “change science from an endeavor finding truth about nature to an endeavor that’s a lever for social justice.” [i.e. more scientific jobs and money for people in proportion to their representation in the population rather than actual studies and qualifications]. The blog further claims that the Nature article supports the idea that “science” be based not on the tools of modern science but on nonscientific aspects such as unsubstantiated stories and myth.
Dr. Coyne and most of his colleagues in the academic establishment, consider that matter and processes represent all of reality. They deny that God exists or that nature displays the work of God’s hands. Thus these people reject a Christian worldview on the creation, while at the same time basing their expectations of the reliability of nature on God’s unchanging nature. Furthermore, they understand that we need a standard of truth in research, but they actually eliminate truth when they banish any idea of God from their work.
At the present time we can see that there is a movement in scientific circles away from seeking truth to a promotion of cultural beliefs. A specialist in neuroscience, in a blog, insists that science can and should make its own truth. Society should decide what ideas they want to support and how to arrive at those ideas. Decide what questions scientific practitioners should ask to obtain the answers society seeks. Thus Sara Giordano declares “critical scholars offer democratic processes for people to determine which values are important and for what purposes knowledge should be developed.” [The Conversation September 4, 2025.]
Christians who, based on modern science, so eagerly change their understanding of the Bible, should reconsider as modern science becomes more and more subjective.
It is evident that when society abandons God and the gospel, society begins to descend into chaos. Society’s leaders are not looking for truth but rather for self-serving agendas. When all pretense of seeking truth in general society is gone, the claims of the gospel surely will become more and more appealing to anguished people. So, take courage and be prepared to share the hope that is in us!
- Tara G. McAllister et al. 2025. Decolonize scientific institutions, don’t just diversify them. Nature 644 (August 14): 331-334.
M. Jean Masters
January 2026
Subscribe to Dialogue
FEATURED BOOKS AND DVDS
Paperback / $10.00 / 169 Pages / full colour
Some years ago, I had occasion to collect a water sample from a small pond south of Lake Manitoba. The fun part was going back to the lab and looking at a drop of the sample under the microscope. I was sampling lakes and ponds every day, but on this occasion I screamed at what I saw. There before my wondering eyes were relatively large, brownish algal cells with fierce looking spines. They were spinning slowly as I watched.
The beauty of such distinctive cells is that they are easy to identify from pictures. It is not like birds, where you know what you are seeing, but you can’t find a picture or description that matches anywhere. In this case, pictures quickly told me that this was Ceratium hirudinella. Google this name to find photos online. You will quickly understand why I was so excited!
Probably nobody has viewed algae from that pond either before or after my visit to the area. But that does not mean the algae were not there! We know that nature is real and we can count on it to be the same and to act the same today, tomorrow and in the past. I own a book for example, written by a Francophone monk Frere Irenee-Marie of Montreal, who published this book in 1939. It includes pictures and descriptions of beautiful single celled green algae called desmids. This book was useful to me, many years later and far from Quebec, because these algae can be counted on to act the same both far and near, and down through the years. This understanding of nature as dependable, is basic to the practice of science.
Dr. Kurt Wise, in his book Faith Form and Time (2002) points out that our expectation that nature can be studied, is in fact based on the Bible. Concerning Genesis 1:1, for example, Dr. Wise declares “Implicit in the very first statement of Scripture is the claim that the physical world does exist … Thus implicit in this statement is the claim that the truth about the physical world can be known and should be known.” [p. 31] Thus “the physical world exists, that information about it should be known … if any of these claims were false, the study of the physical world would be unjustified and impossible.” [p. 33] Scientists may and do disagree on interpretations of observations, but all/most of them agree that what they are looking for, is truth. Since the Middle Ages, this worldview has dominated naturalist agendas as dedicated people developed the pursuit of science.
A recent article in Nature1 calls the above description of science “Dominant science” or “Western science.” This approach is rooted in the Old Testament view that nature is amenable to study because God made it and God is dependable. But the article in Nature recommends that we abandon this western understanding of nature with its methods such as experiments, measurement and conclusions and instead embrace “other ways of knowing.” [p. 333] The article recommends that we support “philosophies, methodologies, criteria and worldview” from ancient peoples with their pagan religions from around the globe. Thus the authors declare “White scholars must recognize read and cite Indigenous scholarship. But they must also engage with it in deep, relational ways and be open to fully understanding its messages, even if it makes them uncomfortable – especially, we argue, if it makes them uncomfortable.” Ideas about sacred sites and animal spirits must be recognized under this scenario as “real knowledge.” [p. 333]
One person who objects to this new view of science (which is not based on the actual study of nature) is atheist Jerry Coyne. His blog “Why Evolution is True” informs us that the influential journal Nature is lending its support to the idea that we should “change science from an endeavor finding truth about nature to an endeavor that’s a lever for social justice.” [i.e. more scientific jobs and money for people in proportion to their representation in the population rather than actual studies and qualifications]. The blog further claims that the Nature article supports the idea that “science” be based not on the tools of modern science but on nonscientific aspects such as unsubstantiated stories and myth.
Dr. Coyne and most of his colleagues in the academic establishment, consider that matter and processes represent all of reality. They deny that God exists or that nature displays the work of God’s hands. Thus these people reject a Christian worldview on the creation, while at the same time basing their expectations of the reliability of nature on God’s unchanging nature. Furthermore, they understand that we need a standard of truth in research, but they actually eliminate truth when they banish any idea of God from their work.
At the present time we can see that there is a movement in scientific circles away from seeking truth to a promotion of cultural beliefs. A specialist in neuroscience, in a blog, insists that science can and should make its own truth. Society should decide what ideas they want to support and how to arrive at those ideas. Decide what questions scientific practitioners should ask to obtain the answers society seeks. Thus Sara Giordano declares “critical scholars offer democratic processes for people to determine which values are important and for what purposes knowledge should be developed.” [The Conversation September 4, 2025.]
Christians who, based on modern science, so eagerly change their understanding of the Bible, should reconsider as modern science becomes more and more subjective.
It is evident that when society abandons God and the gospel, society begins to descend into chaos. Society’s leaders are not looking for truth but rather for self-serving agendas. When all pretense of seeking truth in general society is gone, the claims of the gospel surely will become more and more appealing to anguished people. So, take courage and be prepared to share the hope that is in us!
- Tara G. McAllister et al. 2025. Decolonize scientific institutions, don’t just diversify them. Nature 644 (August 14): 331-334.
Paperback / $6.00 / 55 Pages
Some years ago, I had occasion to collect a water sample from a small pond south of Lake Manitoba. The fun part was going back to the lab and looking at a drop of the sample under the microscope. I was sampling lakes and ponds every day, but on this occasion I screamed at what I saw. There before my wondering eyes were relatively large, brownish algal cells with fierce looking spines. They were spinning slowly as I watched.
The beauty of such distinctive cells is that they are easy to identify from pictures. It is not like birds, where you know what you are seeing, but you can’t find a picture or description that matches anywhere. In this case, pictures quickly told me that this was Ceratium hirudinella. Google this name to find photos online. You will quickly understand why I was so excited!
Probably nobody has viewed algae from that pond either before or after my visit to the area. But that does not mean the algae were not there! We know that nature is real and we can count on it to be the same and to act the same today, tomorrow and in the past. I own a book for example, written by a Francophone monk Frere Irenee-Marie of Montreal, who published this book in 1939. It includes pictures and descriptions of beautiful single celled green algae called desmids. This book was useful to me, many years later and far from Quebec, because these algae can be counted on to act the same both far and near, and down through the years. This understanding of nature as dependable, is basic to the practice of science.
Dr. Kurt Wise, in his book Faith Form and Time (2002) points out that our expectation that nature can be studied, is in fact based on the Bible. Concerning Genesis 1:1, for example, Dr. Wise declares “Implicit in the very first statement of Scripture is the claim that the physical world does exist … Thus implicit in this statement is the claim that the truth about the physical world can be known and should be known.” [p. 31] Thus “the physical world exists, that information about it should be known … if any of these claims were false, the study of the physical world would be unjustified and impossible.” [p. 33] Scientists may and do disagree on interpretations of observations, but all/most of them agree that what they are looking for, is truth. Since the Middle Ages, this worldview has dominated naturalist agendas as dedicated people developed the pursuit of science.
A recent article in Nature1 calls the above description of science “Dominant science” or “Western science.” This approach is rooted in the Old Testament view that nature is amenable to study because God made it and God is dependable. But the article in Nature recommends that we abandon this western understanding of nature with its methods such as experiments, measurement and conclusions and instead embrace “other ways of knowing.” [p. 333] The article recommends that we support “philosophies, methodologies, criteria and worldview” from ancient peoples with their pagan religions from around the globe. Thus the authors declare “White scholars must recognize read and cite Indigenous scholarship. But they must also engage with it in deep, relational ways and be open to fully understanding its messages, even if it makes them uncomfortable – especially, we argue, if it makes them uncomfortable.” Ideas about sacred sites and animal spirits must be recognized under this scenario as “real knowledge.” [p. 333]
One person who objects to this new view of science (which is not based on the actual study of nature) is atheist Jerry Coyne. His blog “Why Evolution is True” informs us that the influential journal Nature is lending its support to the idea that we should “change science from an endeavor finding truth about nature to an endeavor that’s a lever for social justice.” [i.e. more scientific jobs and money for people in proportion to their representation in the population rather than actual studies and qualifications]. The blog further claims that the Nature article supports the idea that “science” be based not on the tools of modern science but on nonscientific aspects such as unsubstantiated stories and myth.
Dr. Coyne and most of his colleagues in the academic establishment, consider that matter and processes represent all of reality. They deny that God exists or that nature displays the work of God’s hands. Thus these people reject a Christian worldview on the creation, while at the same time basing their expectations of the reliability of nature on God’s unchanging nature. Furthermore, they understand that we need a standard of truth in research, but they actually eliminate truth when they banish any idea of God from their work.
At the present time we can see that there is a movement in scientific circles away from seeking truth to a promotion of cultural beliefs. A specialist in neuroscience, in a blog, insists that science can and should make its own truth. Society should decide what ideas they want to support and how to arrive at those ideas. Decide what questions scientific practitioners should ask to obtain the answers society seeks. Thus Sara Giordano declares “critical scholars offer democratic processes for people to determine which values are important and for what purposes knowledge should be developed.” [The Conversation September 4, 2025.]
Christians who, based on modern science, so eagerly change their understanding of the Bible, should reconsider as modern science becomes more and more subjective.
It is evident that when society abandons God and the gospel, society begins to descend into chaos. Society’s leaders are not looking for truth but rather for self-serving agendas. When all pretense of seeking truth in general society is gone, the claims of the gospel surely will become more and more appealing to anguished people. So, take courage and be prepared to share the hope that is in us!
- Tara G. McAllister et al. 2025. Decolonize scientific institutions, don’t just diversify them. Nature 644 (August 14): 331-334.
Paperback / $6.00 / 62 Pages / full colour
Some years ago, I had occasion to collect a water sample from a small pond south of Lake Manitoba. The fun part was going back to the lab and looking at a drop of the sample under the microscope. I was sampling lakes and ponds every day, but on this occasion I screamed at what I saw. There before my wondering eyes were relatively large, brownish algal cells with fierce looking spines. They were spinning slowly as I watched.
The beauty of such distinctive cells is that they are easy to identify from pictures. It is not like birds, where you know what you are seeing, but you can’t find a picture or description that matches anywhere. In this case, pictures quickly told me that this was Ceratium hirudinella. Google this name to find photos online. You will quickly understand why I was so excited!
Probably nobody has viewed algae from that pond either before or after my visit to the area. But that does not mean the algae were not there! We know that nature is real and we can count on it to be the same and to act the same today, tomorrow and in the past. I own a book for example, written by a Francophone monk Frere Irenee-Marie of Montreal, who published this book in 1939. It includes pictures and descriptions of beautiful single celled green algae called desmids. This book was useful to me, many years later and far from Quebec, because these algae can be counted on to act the same both far and near, and down through the years. This understanding of nature as dependable, is basic to the practice of science.
Dr. Kurt Wise, in his book Faith Form and Time (2002) points out that our expectation that nature can be studied, is in fact based on the Bible. Concerning Genesis 1:1, for example, Dr. Wise declares “Implicit in the very first statement of Scripture is the claim that the physical world does exist … Thus implicit in this statement is the claim that the truth about the physical world can be known and should be known.” [p. 31] Thus “the physical world exists, that information about it should be known … if any of these claims were false, the study of the physical world would be unjustified and impossible.” [p. 33] Scientists may and do disagree on interpretations of observations, but all/most of them agree that what they are looking for, is truth. Since the Middle Ages, this worldview has dominated naturalist agendas as dedicated people developed the pursuit of science.
A recent article in Nature1 calls the above description of science “Dominant science” or “Western science.” This approach is rooted in the Old Testament view that nature is amenable to study because God made it and God is dependable. But the article in Nature recommends that we abandon this western understanding of nature with its methods such as experiments, measurement and conclusions and instead embrace “other ways of knowing.” [p. 333] The article recommends that we support “philosophies, methodologies, criteria and worldview” from ancient peoples with their pagan religions from around the globe. Thus the authors declare “White scholars must recognize read and cite Indigenous scholarship. But they must also engage with it in deep, relational ways and be open to fully understanding its messages, even if it makes them uncomfortable – especially, we argue, if it makes them uncomfortable.” Ideas about sacred sites and animal spirits must be recognized under this scenario as “real knowledge.” [p. 333]
One person who objects to this new view of science (which is not based on the actual study of nature) is atheist Jerry Coyne. His blog “Why Evolution is True” informs us that the influential journal Nature is lending its support to the idea that we should “change science from an endeavor finding truth about nature to an endeavor that’s a lever for social justice.” [i.e. more scientific jobs and money for people in proportion to their representation in the population rather than actual studies and qualifications]. The blog further claims that the Nature article supports the idea that “science” be based not on the tools of modern science but on nonscientific aspects such as unsubstantiated stories and myth.
Dr. Coyne and most of his colleagues in the academic establishment, consider that matter and processes represent all of reality. They deny that God exists or that nature displays the work of God’s hands. Thus these people reject a Christian worldview on the creation, while at the same time basing their expectations of the reliability of nature on God’s unchanging nature. Furthermore, they understand that we need a standard of truth in research, but they actually eliminate truth when they banish any idea of God from their work.
At the present time we can see that there is a movement in scientific circles away from seeking truth to a promotion of cultural beliefs. A specialist in neuroscience, in a blog, insists that science can and should make its own truth. Society should decide what ideas they want to support and how to arrive at those ideas. Decide what questions scientific practitioners should ask to obtain the answers society seeks. Thus Sara Giordano declares “critical scholars offer democratic processes for people to determine which values are important and for what purposes knowledge should be developed.” [The Conversation September 4, 2025.]
Christians who, based on modern science, so eagerly change their understanding of the Bible, should reconsider as modern science becomes more and more subjective.
It is evident that when society abandons God and the gospel, society begins to descend into chaos. Society’s leaders are not looking for truth but rather for self-serving agendas. When all pretense of seeking truth in general society is gone, the claims of the gospel surely will become more and more appealing to anguished people. So, take courage and be prepared to share the hope that is in us!
- Tara G. McAllister et al. 2025. Decolonize scientific institutions, don’t just diversify them. Nature 644 (August 14): 331-334.
DVD / $15.00 / 97 Minutes
Some years ago, I had occasion to collect a water sample from a small pond south of Lake Manitoba. The fun part was going back to the lab and looking at a drop of the sample under the microscope. I was sampling lakes and ponds every day, but on this occasion I screamed at what I saw. There before my wondering eyes were relatively large, brownish algal cells with fierce looking spines. They were spinning slowly as I watched.
The beauty of such distinctive cells is that they are easy to identify from pictures. It is not like birds, where you know what you are seeing, but you can’t find a picture or description that matches anywhere. In this case, pictures quickly told me that this was Ceratium hirudinella. Google this name to find photos online. You will quickly understand why I was so excited!
Probably nobody has viewed algae from that pond either before or after my visit to the area. But that does not mean the algae were not there! We know that nature is real and we can count on it to be the same and to act the same today, tomorrow and in the past. I own a book for example, written by a Francophone monk Frere Irenee-Marie of Montreal, who published this book in 1939. It includes pictures and descriptions of beautiful single celled green algae called desmids. This book was useful to me, many years later and far from Quebec, because these algae can be counted on to act the same both far and near, and down through the years. This understanding of nature as dependable, is basic to the practice of science.
Dr. Kurt Wise, in his book Faith Form and Time (2002) points out that our expectation that nature can be studied, is in fact based on the Bible. Concerning Genesis 1:1, for example, Dr. Wise declares “Implicit in the very first statement of Scripture is the claim that the physical world does exist … Thus implicit in this statement is the claim that the truth about the physical world can be known and should be known.” [p. 31] Thus “the physical world exists, that information about it should be known … if any of these claims were false, the study of the physical world would be unjustified and impossible.” [p. 33] Scientists may and do disagree on interpretations of observations, but all/most of them agree that what they are looking for, is truth. Since the Middle Ages, this worldview has dominated naturalist agendas as dedicated people developed the pursuit of science.
A recent article in Nature1 calls the above description of science “Dominant science” or “Western science.” This approach is rooted in the Old Testament view that nature is amenable to study because God made it and God is dependable. But the article in Nature recommends that we abandon this western understanding of nature with its methods such as experiments, measurement and conclusions and instead embrace “other ways of knowing.” [p. 333] The article recommends that we support “philosophies, methodologies, criteria and worldview” from ancient peoples with their pagan religions from around the globe. Thus the authors declare “White scholars must recognize read and cite Indigenous scholarship. But they must also engage with it in deep, relational ways and be open to fully understanding its messages, even if it makes them uncomfortable – especially, we argue, if it makes them uncomfortable.” Ideas about sacred sites and animal spirits must be recognized under this scenario as “real knowledge.” [p. 333]
One person who objects to this new view of science (which is not based on the actual study of nature) is atheist Jerry Coyne. His blog “Why Evolution is True” informs us that the influential journal Nature is lending its support to the idea that we should “change science from an endeavor finding truth about nature to an endeavor that’s a lever for social justice.” [i.e. more scientific jobs and money for people in proportion to their representation in the population rather than actual studies and qualifications]. The blog further claims that the Nature article supports the idea that “science” be based not on the tools of modern science but on nonscientific aspects such as unsubstantiated stories and myth.
Dr. Coyne and most of his colleagues in the academic establishment, consider that matter and processes represent all of reality. They deny that God exists or that nature displays the work of God’s hands. Thus these people reject a Christian worldview on the creation, while at the same time basing their expectations of the reliability of nature on God’s unchanging nature. Furthermore, they understand that we need a standard of truth in research, but they actually eliminate truth when they banish any idea of God from their work.
At the present time we can see that there is a movement in scientific circles away from seeking truth to a promotion of cultural beliefs. A specialist in neuroscience, in a blog, insists that science can and should make its own truth. Society should decide what ideas they want to support and how to arrive at those ideas. Decide what questions scientific practitioners should ask to obtain the answers society seeks. Thus Sara Giordano declares “critical scholars offer democratic processes for people to determine which values are important and for what purposes knowledge should be developed.” [The Conversation September 4, 2025.]
Christians who, based on modern science, so eagerly change their understanding of the Bible, should reconsider as modern science becomes more and more subjective.
It is evident that when society abandons God and the gospel, society begins to descend into chaos. Society’s leaders are not looking for truth but rather for self-serving agendas. When all pretense of seeking truth in general society is gone, the claims of the gospel surely will become more and more appealing to anguished people. So, take courage and be prepared to share the hope that is in us!
- Tara G. McAllister et al. 2025. Decolonize scientific institutions, don’t just diversify them. Nature 644 (August 14): 331-334.