This business of debunking materialism seems like Whack-a-Mole, and so very tiring. So I am embarking on a new strategy, that came to me one night in the Badlands of South Dakota.

I was responsible for taking some 20 college astronomy students out to a state park one evening for the purpose of viewing the pre-dawn stars. We set out at dusk in two vans filled with astronomy toys following written instructions as best we could, and with a few U-turns finally found the appropriate intersection in the dark. What I didn't know until the next morning, was that some farmer had moved the signpost to his front yard as a prank, so that left turn took me instead through several miles of rutted roads, prairie dog moonscapes, huge mudflats and barbed wire gates. The gates had signs on them warning us to close them behind us because this was an experimental release area repopulated with black-footed ferrets. It seems that local farmers had nearly exterminated this ferocious carnivore, perhaps while trying to poison prairie dogs, and consequently the prairie dog villages had come to resemble the Washington-New York corridor. I can vouch that driving over prairie dog burrows is a bone-rattling experience that would have been lethal for horses. But eventually the bit of road illuminated in our headlights just petered out in the wide and lonesome prairie of state grazing lands.

Realizing that we were never going to find this park in the dark, we stopped and set up the telescopes, vaguely aware of moving shadows and seemingly close-by bovine grunts. One nervous student spent the night on the roof of the van. But for those of us who stretched out on the lush grass with binoculars, it was a night like no other.  A warm spring evening brought gentle breezes, clear dark skies, and the Milky Way stretched out spectacularly above us from East to West. Off to the South a thundercloud hovered over the horizon like a mushroom cloud lit by sporadic lightning. To the North, the aurora borealis sent shafts of pale white light heavenward, like a stylized sunburst, or Gotham calling for Batman. Every fifteen minutes or so, a meteor raced across the sky too fast to follow, but leaving a latent image on the retina. We may not have found all the Messier objects we were supposed to check off that night, but we did found at least one successful romance.

But for this post, it was those black-footed ferrets that were significant. It seems that poisoning or dynamiting prairie dogs is like Whack-a-Mole, very satisfying, but ultimately an unsuccessful method of controlling the pests. Likewise, it isn't enough to catalog all the deficiencies of Materialism or Gnosticism, but we must provide a positive replacement if we are to bring them under control. A similar criticism has been made of Intelligent Design, or Johnson's "The Wedge of Truth", that they have not identified a program to replace scientific materialism. So like the black-footed ferret, I humbly resubmit Augustinian science as the appropriate way to reconstruct a 21st century metaphysics, which I call simply "Trinitarian Science".

Why "Trinitarian"? Because the it is not enough to show the incompleteness of mono-maniacal Materialism, but we must also demonstrate that dualistic Gnosticism is schizophrenic, incapable of holding both matter and spirit without implicitly favoring one over the other. Kant's program to wall off religion to keep it safe from science has been about as successful as the Warsaw Ghetto. Instead, we must find a third point, an Archimedean pivot from which we can move the world. From a Materialist viewpoint, it requires the acknowledgment of Mind, the existence and coherence of non-material waves. From a Gnostic viewpoint it requires the acknowledgment of the Holy Other, the empowering unity of flesh and spirit  external to us.

Exhibit A: The distrust of science

It is essential that we make this transition from our truncated practices, because the entire edifice of Western science is in disrepair. Richard John Neuhaus reports in March 2006 First Things on the overwhelming rejection of scientific authority.

• Egregious displays of arrogance are setting what is aptly called the science establishment upon a self-destructive course. This is again made evident in a national survey conducted by Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU). There is, of course, the continuing conflict over the teaching of evolution in the schools. Even some adamant opponents of Intelligent Design and other proposals recognize that the derision heaped upon them by Judge John E. Jones III in the Dover, Pennsylvania, trial was a pyrrhic victory. The controversy is composed of a complex mix of science, culture, religion, and politics and is not likely to be resolved by blunderbuss verdicts from the bench on what is and what is not rational. The VCU survey indicates that only 15 percent of the public thinks that only evolution should be taught in public schools, while 73 percent favor teaching also the controversy about evolution. One may be encouraged or depressed by that finding, but in a society in which every establishment must pay its respects to democracy, it is manifest that the scientific elite is failing to persuade. Or consider the fact that for years that establishment, backed almost unanimously by the mainstream media, have insisted on the necessity of embryonic stem cell research, meaning the creation and destruction of human embryos for research purposes. The survey indicates that only 14 percent of Americans think that embryonic stem cell research “holds the greatest promise” for new treatments of diseases. More generally, while 85 percent say developments in science have helped make society better, 56 percent say that “scientific research doesn’t pay enough attention to the moral values of society,” and 52 percent agree with the statement that “scientific research has created as many problems for society as solutions.” We are told that scientists are the gods and goddesses of our culture. Newspapers run stories every day announcing that “Scientific Study Shows _____,” “Experts say that _____.” It seems an increasing number of the declining number of Americans who still read papers smile a skeptical smile. Since the dawn of the Enlightenment, the solution proposed is that an ignorant populace must be educated. But it has become increasingly evident that much that is called education in science is, in fact, indoctrination in philosophical, moral, and ontological assumptions that most people do not share, and with good reason. Huge enterprises such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, along with science programs in the universities, depend upon public support. It is not good news that so many Americans are suspicious of the scientific enterprise itself. In the Christian perspective, science is a gift of God and the discovery of truth is welcomed and not threatening, since we are confident that all truth is one. All too often, however, what is called science is an admixture of science and alien agendas that reinforces skepticism. Those who command the heights of the scientific establishment must learn to engage the public with a greater measure of humility and candor, recognizing that their credibility depends upon acknowledging that they do not know much more than they do know. People are ready to be taught by teachers they trust. The apparently growing climate of distrust serves neither science nor the public good.

I am reminded of a colleague of mine who spoke no German, yet was asked to give a paper at a conference in Munich. When he arrived at the airport, he found that the taxi-driver spoke no English. In frustration, he spoke in plain English his destination louder and louder, as if the poor man's hearing were the fault. Likewise, scientists are pulling out all the stops, shouting their arrogance louder and louder as if the public's attention were the fault. Here's a typical quote from a geneticist at a science education company's website:

But evolution is real. Which means believers in a Judeo-Christian God will eventually need to incorporate it into their religion. And many, many believers are doing that right now.

If that doesn't sound arrogant, let me unpack it for you. The "Judeo-Christian God" is not a local deity, but the Creator of the entire Universe. If one believes there is a Creator of the entire Universe, what does it mean to "incorporate it into their religion", as if religion is something not just owned by the creatures, but created by the creatures? Obviously this piece of inconsistent nonsense could only be written by someone who has neither met nor read about, nor even contemplated this "Judeo-Christian God".  Ignorance is what turns authority into arrogance. And ever since Lucretius, materialists have specialized in it.

But supposing that scientists can be cured of their arrogance, what would be the next step? The other corrective measure Neuhaus suggests is candor. Since the science of medicine is veritable minefield of public distrust,  here is the president of the Baylor School of Medicine on remedial steps:

How do we manage biomedical science so that the real "owners," the public, are assured of a good return on their investment? How do we overcome growing public concerns that hinder a more effective partnership? Although clear policies, contracts and regulations are important ingredients, I believe the critical component lies in the relationship between the three partners and the transparency of those relationships. Key components of a principled relationship between the partners should include:

• An agreement to work together through a social contract.
• A clear definition of individual missions and how a balance can be achieved that takes into account what is best for the public versus what is best for only one of the partners.
• Clarity and consistency of internal processes in academic medicine and industry to provide transparency to the government.
• An agreement to promote transparency through open communication with the media.

This list is not unique to medicine, but could be applied to all other branches of science, say, Nuclear Physics. "What is the social contract nuclear physics has with the public? Is the public informed on whether it is better to build a nuclear power plant, a coal-fired power plant  or a turbine wind farm?" &c.

However, before we generalize the good doctor's recommendations, let us ask whether the science of medicine intends to take their own prescription. That was written in 2005, and we've had two years of debate since then on the merits of stem-cell research.  What have the scientists been telling the public (and Congress)? Here's NRO's David Freddoso:

Many writers have already questioned just how promising embryonic research is, given that the best science now suggests that it will never cure Alzheimer’s and it probably won’t cure autoimmune diseases such as juvenile diabetes. But the falsehoods that seem inevitably to accompany embryonic research as a political issue should themselves give voters pause. Why must the backers of this research invoke bad science and sow public confusion every time the issue appears in the public square?

Is this just the fault of overzealous scientists being misinterpreted by science-averse politicians? Here is the "Embryonic Stem Cell Research at UW-Madison" webpage, which on April 6 had a dozen or so links. The first and second links were for embryonic stem cell wok that showed "promise" as potential therapy, the third gushes about the first ever clinical trial. This is significant, because in 15 years of embryonic stem cell research, with literally hundreds of studies which showed "promise", the clinical trials were all total disasters when they weren't fatal.  But that third link turned out to be adult, not embryonic stem cells at all!. Over at the BBC this same news item is identified as "bone-marrow" stem cells only in the 13th paragraph, with no mention that this was not an embryonic stem cell line.  These are not your average politicos, but admittedly geek PR websites for geeks.  So where is the candor?

I think it should be clear from the fervor of both global warming and embryonic stem cell proponents that this divide between science and the public is not going to be bridged any time soon. Nor is the failure because scientists are like Moses and can't communicate.  After all, if BBC, NBC, CBS, ABC and Congressman Schumer can't convince the public, it isn't a communication problem.

No, the problem isn't ignorance, PR, poor education or ideologues. The root problem lies in metaphysics, or as Chesterton said so well, lies with the monomaniac who believes the universe revolves about himself, and the cure is orthodoxy.  But read him directly, he said it so much better.