Ain’t No Such Thing as The Inerrant Word of Science

“They actually believe that, whether they realize it or not.” – Matt Powell

Matt Powell, for those lucky enough not to be familiar with him, is a Christian fundamentalist who preaches such nonsense claims about what atheists “believe” as: life evolved from rocks, dinosaurs farted themselves to death, monkeys surfed to South America, and beards evolved to cushion punches to the face. He defends these claims from the denials of atheists seemingly oblivious to their own deeply held beliefs by judiciously calling upon (or, to be more precise, carelessly cherry-picking from) the inerrant word of science, however no such thing exists, and with this misguided quote mining Powell merely demonstrates his own scientific illiteracy.

Let me clarify what exactly I mean when I say Matt Powell is scientifically illiterate, lest some nefarious actor should take my words out of context. I do not mean that Powell has misunderstood (or at least misrepresented) particular scientific studies, although he has, repeatedly, and you can find the debunks out there to prove it. Nor do I mean that Powell is somehow incapable of comprehending such studies, although, due to the nature of his epistemic system, that may well be the case. No, what I mean is far more fundamental: Powell does not understand the very concept of scientific literature.

The literature is not, as Powell seems to believe, or, at the very least, would have his audience believe, an established and unquestionable body of facts, but rather it is a forum for enlightened discussion. A millennia-old forum which is described by distinguished researchers Booth et al, in The Craft of Research (2024), as, “the oldest and most esteemed of human conversations;” “a conversation that, at its best, can help to liberate all of us from ignorance, prejudice, and the half-baked ideas that so many frauds and quacks try to impose on us” (mentioning no names there).

Booth et al affirm that, for them, “the idea that communication is a conversation is crucial.” Engagement with the literature is, they reiterate, engagement in silent conversation with the researchers that produced it and all the researchers they in turn drew upon. And while, at least at the beginning, this conversation is admittedly somewhat one-sided, it is nonetheless a conversation. A conversation that requires a level of active involvement, perhaps, not so essential when engaging with, say, the inerrant word of God.

Experienced researchers, according to Booth et al, “don’t read passively; they engage their sources actively, entering into conversation with them.” This can, they suggest, be facilitated by reading important sources twice: once for comprehension and once for critique. The second reading is essential as no claim, and they are quite clear about this, should ever be accepted purely because it comes from an authoritative source. Maybe, just maybe, it is this that a fundamentalist such as Powell might struggle with.

Thus, while it may be (and I really don’t know enough to say whether it is or not) perfectly reasonable to state that a biblical literalist who hasn’t fully engaged with their literature, believes things that they don’t realize they believe; to make the same claim of science, where disagreement with claims made in the literature isn’t just accepted but expected of all who engage with it, is entirely nonsensical.  And yet this is exactly what Powell does, indicating, as previously stated, that he is indeed scientifically illiterate.