| The poetry of reality|
|Extraordinary claims with|
|Hot from the|
Steven Dutch is a professor of Natural and Applied Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay.
He makes several convincing refutations of Luddites/technophobes, stating that their arguments against science as a method of reasoning and technology as a method of advancement can be divided into 9 fields:
- Science and technology are out of control
- Science and technology force workers into degrading and monotonous jobs
- Technology forces people to consume unnecessary goods and services
- Science and technology place decision-making in the hands of a technocratic elite
- Science and technology cut man off from the natural world
- Science and technology make man superficial
- Technology creates worse problems than it solves
- Science and technology restrict freedom
- The scientific worldview robs the world of mystery and beauty
Here, he responds to a critique of each one. He largely focuses on rejecting the superficiality and simplicity posited by people such as Jacques Ellul and L. S. Stavrianos, stating that it is easier to blame the choices brought about by technology than to face the questions the choices raise.
One theme that is consistent throughout his website is his criticism of both creationism/intelligent design along with theists supportive of that, and of atheists critical of religion. He claims that Richard Dawkins is utterly ignorant of theology, and states that there is no proof that an infinite regress is impossible. He claims that Dawkins' critique of religion is unjustified, as both natural selection and deities are self-explaining. He also criticizes Bertrand Russell for "blaming science for the barrenness of his own personal philosophy [agnosticism]". Based on his support of evolution and membership in the Affiliation of Christian Geologists at Wheaton University it appears that Dutch is a Christian who supports theistic evolution, which explains his stance.
Dutch has also criticized the 9/11 truth movement, noting that physics adequately explains how the buildings fell. He also argues that if the American government had been able to perpetrate the attacks, they probably would have been able to fake the presence of WMDs in Iraq.
He has further argued science cannot establish miracles (although dishonestly or erroneously saying David Hume claimed no testimony can establish any miracles, when in fact he said testimony could, it just would have to be more miraculous that it were false), but also says science can't disprove miracles, presumably thinking it salvages his religion. What evidence he thinks exists to support the Resurrection, for instance, isn't said. Worse, he commits a special pleading fallacy near the end by first saying the fact most UFO sightings have been explained by fraud or mistaking natural phenomena warrants believing that none are true, but then attacks Hume for much the same reasoning against miracles, relying on a strawman version of Hume's argument to do this.