Keas, Michael Newton. UNBELIEVABLE: 7 Myths about the History and Future of Science and Religion. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2019.
A close study of the history of science shows that Science and Christianity were not at war and need not war with one another. In this book, Dr. Keas successfully debunks seven of the most prominent narratives/myths about the history and future of science and faith. He divides his book into two parts. In the first part, Keas shows how and why each one of these narratives is nothing but a myth. For instance, Giordano Bruno was not executed for his belief in the Copernican principle but rather for his notorious heresy (p.57-74).
In the second part, the author carefully tracks down the origins and developments of these false narratives through the centuries (16th -21st century) as they gradually permeate textbooks, media, and popular culture. Although these myths have different origins and have developed in diverse settings, they all have one thing in common, “they have been used to oppose the Christian faith more than any other religious faith.” (p.193). Contrary to popular claims, Christianity contributed to the rise of modern science and the scientific method in many ways. Even during the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church was not the enemy of science and scientists as it is usually depicted in pop- culture. In fact, during the late Middle Ages, the church formed many universities that later became beacons of modern science.
Keas’s work is significant in many ways, but I think that his best contribution is the exposure of the falsehood of the ‘Copernican Principle.’ The Copernican Principle states that the discovery of the heliocentric model by Copernicus dethroned the Earth and man from the center of the universe and showed how insignificant humans are. In chapter six, Copernican Demotion, Keas shows that Copernicus, a canon in the Catholic Church, did not promote what was later labeled ‘Copernican principle.’ Contrary to contemporary Astrologists, Copernicus did not naively equate smallness with insignificance. He viewed his heliocentric model as compatible with the Christian faith and Scripture in harmony with the Scriptures. An enormous universe reflects the greatness and power of its Creator, and the smallness of humanity promotes us to worship our great Creator. Furthermore, the Medieval geocentric model itself did not regard Earth as the center of the universe in a positive sense, but like a dirt/sewage of the universe in contrast with the sacred elements from which the celestial bodies were made (this fact in itself debunks the myth of the Copernican Principle).
One final fact is that many of these myths originated from Protestant polemics against the Catholic Church. These attacks on the Catholic Church and Medieval period (Dark Ages) were later picked up and developed by anti-theistic critics to defame the Christian faith in general. If Christians would gain any insight from this fact, we must be fair in our criticism of opponents and not take our arguments too far beyond truth for any pragmatic reasons. The Middle Ages were not all dark. After all, the church founded most of the universities that we know today during the Middle age. That said, I still do not share the author’s optimistic view of the Middle Ages and the Catholic Church. Indeed, I reject the unfair polemic against the church during the Medieval period, but I think this period has its shortfalls, and in one sense, it was dark. Thus, I would not go as far as to call it the “Age of Illumination,” as Keas labels them in his volume (p.40).
Out of Egypt 